Catholic Family News has published a transcript of Dr. Roberto de Mattei’s talk as given on April 7, 2018 at the CFN Conference; writer Stephen Kokx provided an overview of the same at LifeSite News.
Here, I will touch on some of the more noteworthy parts of the presentation.
Dr. de Mattei is no progressive; not by a long shot. His book, Vatican II – An unwritten story, is magnificent. That said, some of his thoughts are puzzling to say the very least. For one, he states:
The Nota explicativa praevia, [preliminary explanatory note] desired by Paul VI to save the orthodoxy of the document [Lumen Gentium], was a compromise between the principle of the primacy of Peter and that of the collegiality of the bishops.
Especially in light of the pending (FAKE) “canonization” of Paul VI, we need to be clear:
First, it must be said that Dr. de Mattei’s statement is contradictory in itself, as orthodoxy is never “saved” by way of “compromise.”
That said, and more importantly, there is precious little evidence that Paul VI “desired to save the orthodoxy” of Lumen Gentium on this particular point, or any other for that matter. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Paul VI revealed his true desire when he issued the Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo, which established the Synod of Bishops as we know it. In this document, he listed among the “general purposes of the Synod”:
…to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.
The diabolical nature of this initiative cannot be overstated.
At this point in time it is perfectly clear that Apostolica Sollicitudo quietly, and with a subtlety worthy of the Master Deceiver himself, set the stage where upon the “God of surprises” would one day issue the Bergoglian Trilogy; Evangelii Gaudium, Amoris Laetitia, and Gaudete et Exsultate – each of which is ordered toward laying waste to “essential matters of doctrine” by treating them as if they are subject to legitimate disagreement.
In short, we can thank the Council first and foremost, of course, but in no small measure we owe it to Paul VI for the present Bergoglian scourge on the Mystical Body of Christ.
Dr. de Mattei went on to say:
Synodality, collegiality, decentralization are the words which today express the attempt to transform the monarchical and hierarchical constitution of the Church into a democratic and parliamentary structure.
Indeed! And let us not forget that it was Paul VI who, in addition to establishing the Synod of Bishops to deliberate matters long since defined, with great fanfare relinquished the papal triregnum, thus making plain his intent to transform the monarchical and hierarchical constitution of the Church.
So much for desiring to save orthodoxy.
Of the more interesting, and ultimately troubling, comments offered by Dr. de Mattei concern the matter of Benedict’s so-called resignation.
He states and correctly so:
The Pope is he in whom this visibility of the Church is concentrated and condensed …
He later went on to speak of:
… the existence of a false premise, accepted by all: the existence of a sort of papal diarchy, in which there’s Pope Francis who carries out its functions, and then there’s another Pope, Benedict, who serves the Chair of Peter through prayer, and if necessary, with counsel. The existence of the two Popes is admitted as a done deal: only the nature of their relationship is argued. But the truth is that it is impossible that two Popes can exist. The Papacy is not dis-mountable: there can be only one Vicar of Christ.
Truer words were never spoken! And the professor is just getting warmed up:
Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry.
OK, let’s recap the events of February 2013 according to Dr. de Mattei’s observations, shall we.
Pope Benedict XVI, could have renounced the papacy, but in order to do so he would have had to do a number of things that he did not do. And the reason is obvious – he still considers himself Pope; albeit with a diminished sense of responsibility.
There is only one way to add all of this up, folks:
If Dr. de Mattei is correct, the See of Peter simply was not vacant when the conclave assembled in March of 2013; rather, it was still, and continues to be, occupied by Benedict XVI.
I will say it once again: Fr. Nicholas Gruner firmly believed as much, and what’s more, he believed that the topic of Francis’ legitimacy is entirely relevant to the message of Fatima; no matter how desperately certain persons labor to pretend otherwise.
Dr. de Mattei, however, stops short of drawing the obvious conclusion to which his own observations lead, opting instead to take refuge in two magnificently flawed notions, the first of which states:
Canonists have always taught that the peaceful “universalis ecclesiae adhaesio” (universal ecclesial acceptance) is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and legitimate papacy, and the adhesion or acceptance of Pope Francis by the people of God has not yet been doubted by any of the cardinals who participated in the Conclave.
Note the doublespeak; even if inadvertent:
Does universal ecclesial acceptance concern “the people of God,” or does it pertain only to “the cardinals who participated in the Conclave”?
In either case – and it is my understanding that it is the former, otherwise it wouldn’t be universal – the argument is weak.
For one, how does Dr. de Mattei know whether or not any of the cardinals harbor doubt, much less the people of God at large?
It is my experience (and certainly that of many others) that numerous persons had serious reservations about Francis from moment one; quite the opposite of peaceful acceptance.
The truth is, Dr. de Mattei has no idea just how widely accepted Francis was upon his introduction on the loggia at St. Peter’s, and given the fear that has been gripping Rome for some time, the lack of public statements from members of the hierarchy is hardly evidence that the legitimacy of Francis is not subject to serious doubt.
That said, if indeed the See of Peter was occupied as the conclave met (as Dr. de Mattei appears to believe), then no amount of “acceptance” of a new occupant on anyone’s part – lay or ordained – could possibly change that reality.
Consider as an analogy a married man who by all appearances is unmarried, but is subsequently “joined” in Holy Matrimony to another woman as witnessed by a well-intended priest before a gathering family and friends.
No amount of acceptance and adherence as to the validity of the second marriage can make woman #2 the man’s spouse. Why not? Simple – that “office” was not vacant; rather it was already and presently occupied, and the ignorance of the masses on this note did nothing to change that fact.
Dr. de Mattei unfortunately has fallen prey to the following unsupportable related argument:
The acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is an infallible sign of his legitimacy, and heals at the root every defect of the papal election (for example, illegal machinations, conspiracies, et cetera). This is also a consequence of visible character of the Church and of the Papacy.
Those who hang their hat on this argument are utterly unable to provide any citations whatsoever in support of it. The best they can do is to cite theologians that affirm (and rightly so) that defects in a validly assembled conclave are healed at the root upon universal and peaceful acceptance of a new pope.
This is a far cry from insisting that a new pope can be made even when the See of Peter is occupied if only the faithful are sufficiently duped into believing that it was vacant.
Finally, and equally as relevant to the present state of affairs in the Church, is Francis’ claim on the papacy in light of his heresy.
Dr. de Mattei rightly states:
… the cardinals would be limited to only certifying the fact of heresy … without exercising any deposition of the Roman Pontiff. The cessation of the primatial office would only be acknowledged and declared by them.
Note very well the chronological order of events:
ONE: The heresy of a pope results in his loss of office. Precisely when Christ removes the office from the man (which is precisely what must happen) isn’t germane to the present discussion.
TWO: The cardinals acknowledge and declare the loss of office after the fact.
So far so good, but Dr. de Mattei veers immediately into denial when he states, as reported by Mr. Kokx:
Catholics must “clarify to people that unfortunately [Pope Francis] propagates heresy.” However, Francis “does not lose his office until his heresy becomes manifest” and widespread. This “has not yet happened.”
For the record, “manifest” in this case is not some esoteric concept that only doctors of canon law can fully grasp; it simply means publicly known as opposed to merely private.
How anyone, never mind a man of Dr. de Mattei’s intellect, can possibly argue that Francis’ heresy is not yet widely known in the public realm is well beyond my imagination! It truly is nothing less than a denial of objective reality.
At this, I will invite you to watch (or re-watch as the case may be) and perhaps share the following video which addresses yet another denial of objective reality; namely, the preposterous notion that Francis has yet to be corrected. (Don’t laugh, the traditional Catholic media magnate who said this was dead serious. No, I won’t name him as that would be most uncharitable.)
The bottom line is this, folks:
Apart from denying what our eyes can plainly see and our ears can clearly hear, one must admit that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the walking definition of a manifest, formal, pertinacious (add whatever adjective you’d like provided it does not excuse the man) heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Christ.
Will the cardinals declare it?
Probably not and that’s a crying shame, but then again I don’t need them to tell me that it’s raining outside when my clothes get soaking wet as I’m walking to the mailbox.
To put it in more serious language, one is never required to deny objective reality in order to remain a faithful Catholic; indeed, the exact opposite is true, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, no matter how impressive their academic qualifications may be.
This is an interesting piece on Robert de Mattei by John Lane.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1825
Louie, Malachi Martin explained the Nota Explicita to me personally . He said the Pope was angry the Bishops were usurping his authority , but afterwards it was ignored anyway.
I do not think it was so much about saving orthodoxy as being annoyed that they were stepping on his toes and discrediting his office personally.
JP2 never challenged Communion in the hand or female altar servers. That was a nod to the Bishops .
Here lies a major problem-collegiality.
Here is an excellent explanation of why collegiality is such a disaster for the survival of the Church:
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/427-what-is-collegiality.html
Every bishop is a Pope in his own diocese…too much power in the hands of men who have for the most part lost the Faith. They are CEOs, not shepherds.
I’m becoming ever more convinced of the decisive role of the will rather than the intellect in so many aspects of life.
CEO’s ,Politicians and Accountants ,to be more precise, 2Cents…….
Most of little Faith .
If the pederasts did not cost them financially they would still be transferring them around per Woytola ,Ratzinger and only God knows how many who ordered the same practiced ritual of covering up before them.
Too bad they did not think of the time honored rituals that give Honor and Glory to God over the staffing of parishes for the passing of the collection plates.
The money they can afford to lose.
Souls they cannot.
Yes, and it’s a heresy among the vast number of heresies of the church that nevertheless calls itself the Catholic Church:
Lumen Gentium # 22: “However, the order of Bishops, which succeeds the college of apostles in teaching authority and pastoral government, and indeed in which the apostolic body continues to exist without interruption, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided it remains united with its head …”[45]
To the contrary, the actual Church (Christ) commands as follows:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “… Of the one and only Church there is one body, one head, not two heads as a monster…”[46]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 14), June 29, 1896: “For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’ (Luke 6:13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked upon as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.”[47]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15): “But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to themselves.”[48]
Dear Louie,
You closed your current reflection with this:
“To put it in more serious language, one is never required to deny objective reality in order to remain a faithful Catholic; indeed, the exact opposite is true, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, no matter how impressive their academic qualifications may be.”
The church, which each “Pope” since Pius XII has claimed his “Papacy” to exist in, adheres to the purported, “Ecumenical Council of Vatican II”, as being the language of the “Catholic Church” as a “Council” of the “Catholic Church”, the same church which they stake their claim to the “Papacy”as to be existing in, and to actually as literally occupy this space, the so called, “conciliar church”, as then, “conciliar popes”.
As you properly state, one must Never deny Objective reality, and while denying objective reality, at the same time believe that somehow in their denial of objective reality, they can be authentically Catholic and remain inside the Church thus, as where outside the Church, there is no salvation, deFide.
With that understanding, “Lumen Gentium”, paragraph 16, places an actual as literal affront to the Apostles Creed, with a tacit denial of the very Triune Personhood of Almighty God, as He has revealed Himself to Be, accomplishing this with a Luciferian, slight of hand, objectively as unequivocally understood. Amen. This is the objective reality which not only vacates the “Pontificates” since 1958, as being false popes since and including Roncalli, but it literally as actually vanquishes the church, which so happens to control the entire temporal edifice of those temporal structures, once controlled by the true Church, established by the Son of God, made true Man. Amen. This is the objective reality and as such it simply cannot be denied, as to deny it, one places themselves outside the true Church, where there simply is no salvation, deFide.
It is now blasphemy to speak of a true Holy Roman Pontiff as being able to lose his personal faith ever, as this has been infallibly defined in the 4th Session of the Vatican Council, July of 1870, period and end. It was proper for Saint Robert Bellarmine to entertain the possibility, which by the way, he greatly doubted could ever happen, but it is not proper, rather blasphemous for anyone today to consider the possibility. To quote now the language of the 4th Session of the Vatican Council:
“6.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:32].
7.This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
These are the marks of the true, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and the true Holy Roman Pontiff, Amen; that which a pious 12 year old in the state of grace must know, at the pain of Hell. We know that the popes since 1958 are false with divine certitude, as the Vatican Council infallibly declared that the Holy Roman Pontiff can never lose his personal faith, as in the embrace of heresy, which is in opposition to the Faith, One and True. Again, it is simply a matter of objective reality, that each and every one of these false popes since 1958, declares the “Vatican Council II”, as being an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church and as it teaches heresy, it simply cannot be the Holy Catholic Church which does this, deFide, as the Mystical Body and Bride of Christ, cannot be in opposition to Him. Since these men who have declared the church, which teaches heresy in the objective realm of reality in its ecumenical council as vatican ii, to be the church which they are “popes” of, we know with divine certitude both that it cannot be the Catholic Church as it teaches heresy as objectively understood, and since they have lost their faith, if they ever had it, they simply and with infallible certitude cannot be true Popes as heretics or apostates. I pray this helps, as the objective truth as Truth is very, very hard. In caritas
Regarding Vatican I, Session 4. Chapter 4. on Papal Infallibility, you like to quote par. 6 and 7, but you never seem to get to par. 9, the very last paragraph of the council where the dogma is actually defined and all previous paragraphs must be understood…peculiar.
While para 9 defines the dogma, this definition in no wise teaches that the Church can promulgate error or heresy through the Magesterium. So even though Vatican 2 did not solemnly define any dogma, it nevertheless promulgated errors and heresies. The Vatican Council of 1870 taught that Holy Mother Church could in no wise be the origin of such hereies since She is spotless and pure and protected from these stains by Her Groom, Our Lord Jesus Christ. To insinuate that Holy Mother Church can feed us poisonous heresies is utter blasphemy. Whether you know it or not, John314, that is what exactly you and everyone else is doing when you posit that those who gave us V2 and the NO did so as hierarchy in Holy Mother Church. It is offensive to Catholic ears to hear that Holy Mother Church can do such things to our souls.
Tom A. here is the dogma (scroll all the way down):
–
https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
–
Being a dogma, the Church defined it for good reasons, not the least of which is our salvation. What this dogma does NOT say, “in no wise”, is not pertinent. What it does statute, declare, and define is when the Pope is infallible, and by logical inference, when he possibly is not. And being fallible means committing error, up to and including heresy. If you want to say that the Pope and/or the magesterium is infallible all the time anyway (spotless) you are making the dogma superfluous, a waste of time and words.
As you could probably assume by now, I am not a theologian and not as well versed in dogma and canon law, as others who post here.
However, the following is all I need to know why the V2 “church” is not Catholic and has deprived millions of Catholics of the True Faith given to us by Our Lord:
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/04/14/20-things-i-experience-in-the-catholic-church-before-vatican-ii/
I hope everyone reads this. Thank you
Once you realize the truth that the primary issue is the fact that a new religion was created in Vatican II, although it wasn’t complete at that time but the vehicle to incrementally introduce one or more of its diabolic and varied heresies and changes into the practices of every aspect of life within the institution, you can talk and talk, have conference after conference, and complain until your face turns blue about how terrible everything is but you will never, ever, find a resolution because the religion is not Catholic.
Well said, Katherine! Louie must be commended for speaking the Truth and for exposing these unholy culprits who use their earthly power to corrupt and destroy. It takes more than a pea shooter to kill the evil giant. Where are the big guns in this battle between Good and Evil? I don’t think they will emerge from same camp with the enemy. Only time will tell. I pray Robert de Mattei is not one of the elect who has been fooled. The True Catholic faith cannot be suppressed in the hearts, minds and souls of Catholic Faithful who cherish what was lost. Our Lady, Help of Christians, come to our aid.
Good Thursday morning John314,
TomA is correct in his repair of your blasphemous damage, as the “whole” is as it must and can only ever be, “greater than its parts”, as the Angelic Doctor taught us in his Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, as properly understood, period and end. As an analogous reflection, you John314, in your totality as an human person , are greater than your arm, simply an appendage of the whole, a literal part of who you are. You parse what the infallible Council taught, as though the part which speaks to the divine Reality that an Holy Roman Pontiff can NEVER lose his personal faith, is negated by another part as any other part, and that part which speaks to the Singular authority of the one man in the cosmos, which He created ex nihilo, as the Holy Roman Pontiff, and he alone as Singularly, enjoys the charism of infallible protection, apart from any other man or men (as in apart from being in union with his Bishops), when he defines and teaches alone, period and end.
That precise understanding of reality as Truth, now out of the way, what is it really that you cannot comprehend and with the operation of your intellect, from this infallible declaration of the Vatican Council, and in its 4th Session of 1870, July?:
“7.This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see…”
You actually as literally freely choose to “qualify” in their infallible decree, the infallible proclamation of a true Holy Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops, as in Ecumenical Council, and as thus enjoying the perfect as infinite charism of the Holy Ghost, that charism to be understood as “Ecclesiastical Infallibility”, whereby what the Holy Roman Pontiff declares, in union with his Bishops, in their capacity as teachers/guiders in the Faith, can NEVER EVER ERR, as this is the command of God’s Holy Church, period and end. If the Holy Roman Pontiff could lose his personal faith, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed against Christ’s Church, perhaps during the reign as Pontiff of Blessed Peter Himself, as we know with divine certitude, he denied Jesus the Christ, thrice, as from his immanence, which was then unprotected by the charism of the Holy Ghost, which fell upon him as Christ Jesus our King commanded, after His glorious Ascension, and at Pentecost. Amen. Alleluia.
You see John314, in your hubris, as in the hubris of Salza, Sisco, JPeters, Folbrecht, Matt, Ferrara, etc, etc, as in all of the so called, “Recognize and Resist” contingent of apostates, that including the so called, “SSPX” as the first, your intellective blindness, as theirs’, itself speaks. Why is it that in their diatribe, “True or False Pope”, which the SSPX published, they somehow “overlooked” the infallible teaching that the true Holy Roman Pontiff simply CANNOT ever lose his personal faith as it is printed right there before all eyes which see to see? Ascan only be known as res ipsa loquitur, this is the existential manifestation of the, “diabolical disorientation of the mind”, which those same so called, “Traditionalists”, hurl at the prelates of the church of the Antichrist, the so called, “conciliar or post VCII church”, which is the antichurch of the Antichrist, as it CANNOT be the Church founded by Jesus the Christ, as it preaches the antigospel, Amen. While those same, “Traditionalists”, hurl the accusation of “diabolical disorientation of the mind” upon these false popes as these same false popes embrace heresy as the teaching of their so called, “catholic church”, they claim these men are the true Roman Pontiffs of the true Church thus, which is an absurdity that rocks the cosmos from its foundational reality. Not because this perfectly miserable wretch claims it to be so, but because the infallible Vatican Council has commanded with its Authority and under divine protection never to err, that the true Holy Roman Pontiff cannot lose his personal faith, as ever. Human persons do not have the intellective capacity to “make this stuff up”, while at once, “make this stuff happen”. This “stuff” is the work of the Prince himself, at once using his human slaves. The Truth is hard but He came not to bring peace, but the sword, as it is in division where the truth as Truth springs forth and is plainly seen. I pray this helps as your eternal salvation, as that of all the rest of us perfectly miserable human creatures, literally as actually depends upon knowing this. Those who don’t know this and die within this creature beast thing from Hell professing itself to be the Catholic Church, while all dressed up in the accidentals of the true Church, and at once existing as the abomination of desolation, will as objectively understood, spend their eternity in Hell with their Prince, as it is his church. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Hello Katherine,
And Amen. Alleluia. What you write here is simply CATHOLIC. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
my2cents: Another practice that was common among Catholics, particularly in Catholic countries, was to stop whatever you were doing three times during the day, morning, noon, and evening and pray the Angelus Domini:
The Angel of the Lord declared to Mary:
And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word.
Hail Mary . . .
And the Word was made Flesh: And dwelt among us.
Hail Mary . . .
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray:
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we, to whom the incarnation of Christ, Thy Son, was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His Resurrection, through the same Christ Our Lord.
Amen.
Katherine, how many Catholic devotions are now tossed aside because they were only silly habits with no meaning or graces. I remember well the pre-V2 Novenas which were attended in great numbers to listen to wonderful Catholic sermons from missionaries who traveled far and wide. How many today could recite the Angelus or even know what the Angelus is. Thank you for reminding us. What happened to the long lines waiting to go to confession on Saturday afternoons? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot. Hell and sin do not exists. How pathetic!
I do commend Louie for all of his posts that clearly point out the contradictions that ought to be evident to those who have some influence such as Dr. de Mattei but as long as you try to argue using a false premise, your argument cannot be anything other than contradictory.
As long as you believe the Catholic Church can be both the Catholic Church and a newly man-invented church with a different liturgy, different sacraments, a different governing body, different and opposing doctrines and practices and teach and preach a different Gospel, which is clearly what happened with Vatican II, you really have nothing to argue about.
And again John314,
Indeed, a virtuous 12 year old in the state of grace would know this, as he must know this, and with the pain of an eternity in Hell:
“…never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see…”
As, “never-failing faith”, speaks as res ipsa loquitur, and as the summa and summit, from the very essence of the meaning of this Latin expression. “Never-failing faith”, simply means a “faith” which can “NEVER FAIL”, as never is never, period and end. Anyone who actually as literally attempts to parse these words, “never-failing faith”, as proclaimed infallibly by the Mystical Body and Bride of Christ Jesus–His Church, is actually as literally attacking the very divinity of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, made True Man, Amen; as it is His Vicar in union with His Apostolic Successors, who have commanded this reality as Truth into being, period and end. They speak as Christ in this wretched world. Amen. In caritas.
I read it 2 Cents. as I do often when a friend in her eighties sends it to me.
I lived it . I loved it, I remember it and I have lost it and continue to search for it. Sadly, just about everywhere, I have run across priests who hate it and are not demonstrating proper pastoral care for those who lived it. More times than not ,
clerics are hostile to the Faithful who long for it , all the way up to Borgoglio.
SSPX, FSSP and the Indult are all just poor imitations.
Bingo!!!
Yes, Katherine. Truth and Error cannot live side by side.
By saying that the Church can sometimes give the faithful error and heresy, just not “infallibly”, you make the Holy Catholic Church superfluous, a waste of time and words, not to mention Our Lord’s Precious Blood, which he shed to purchase the Church. (Acts 20:28)
To say such a thing about His Church is to trample upon His Precious Blood.
Such mental gymnastics from de Mattei. I think this contradictory thinking from him and others is because they don’t want to admit too readily that they have been wrong all this time.
No worries. I believe most Catholic saints were not “intellectuals” either.
“OK, let’s recap the events of February 2013 according to Dr. de Mattei’s observations, shall we.
Pope Benedict XVI, could have renounced the papacy, but in order to do so he would have had to do a number of things that he did not do. And the reason is obvious – he still considers himself Pope; albeit with a diminished sense of responsibility.
There is only one way to add all of this up, folks:
If Dr. de Mattei is correct, the See of Peter simply was not vacant when the conclave assembled in March of 2013; rather, it was still, and continues to be, occupied by Benedict XVI.
I will say it once again: Fr. Nicholas Gruner firmly believed as much, and what’s more, he believed that the topic of Francis’ legitimacy is entirely relevant to the message of Fatima; no matter how desperately certain persons labor to pretend otherwise.”
Spot on, Louie. Bravo to your whole blog post. Unfortunately, Canon212.com didn’t do you justice with their headline that lacked the more pertinent content of what you have written here. Maybe they’ll update it. 😉
Let’s forget the labyrinth of old and new Canon Law. Theological discourse, dissertations, exhortations and everything else that proves a cleric is a Pope or a heretic.
The Papal sheep farmers let the sodomite wolves heard and devour the sheep PERIOD !
They ALL knew and continue to know who is who ! Including the effeminate Cdl Burke.
St Peter would not have done this. This is all just an exercise. de Mattei IS a follower of the original Plinio cult in South America .
I do not need him or anyone else to decipher the anathema I have seen and heard from clerics, especially the filthy sex ed obsessed Bishops like Bishop James McHugh,. I KNOW and met the freaky disgusting sodomite priests HE sheltered and promoted. One of them with the dirtiest mouths is a Bishop now.
When Cardinal Gagnon admitted to me he was shocked Ken Roberts was allowed in the Order of St Gregory ( long before Roberts was defrocked), I knew they ALL know.
Sorry but NO Canon Law can be ratified in Heaven to protect these sinners who have allowed children’s souls and psyches to have turned them against entering a Church and deny them the Grace of Our Lord’s Body and Blood.
It is NOT about “forgiveness” . it is about Trust. The victims and their parents ,sisters and brothers will never trust these prelates and priests again.
Absolutely nothing has been concretely done to restore that trust.NOTHING !
sweep–Faith and Trust go hand in hand. Without Trust, there is no Faith.
So many Catholics have lost all trust ( faith ) in the Catholic priesthood today.
Can you blame them?
Fr. Carota had holy simplicity. I want it.
“First, it must be said that Dr. de Mattei’s statement is contradictory in itself, as orthodoxy is never “saved” by way of “compromise.””
+++++++++++++++++++
A special commission (Congregatio de Auxiliis), presided over by Cardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine the questions at issue. The first session was held in January 1598, and in February of the same year the majority of the members reported in favor of condemning Molina’s book. Clement VIII. requested the commission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a comparatively short time the majority presented a second report unfavorable to Molina. Representatives of the Dominicans and Jesuits were invited to attend in the hope that by means of friendly discussion an agreement satisfactory to both parties might be secured. In 1601 the majority were in favor of condemning twenty propositions taken from Molina’s work, but the Pope refused to confirm the decision. From 1602 till 1605 the sessions were held in the presence of the Pope and of many of the cardinals. Among the consultants was Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh. The death of Clement VIII. in March 1605 led to an adjournment. In September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continued till March 1606, when the votes of the consultants were handed in. In July 1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions, but a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy See would be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile both parties were at liberty to teach their opinions. Neither side was, however, to accuse the other of heresy. Since that time no definite decision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith are concerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism or Molinism.
What was the issue ABS?
ABS, Give it up ! Absolutely no one with a real brain should listen to anything you post anywhere.
Your defense of Bishop Barbarito over Fr Gallagher’s actions of right reason , is scandalous and disgusting. You have been all over the Internet defending the indefensible . Read about your beloved Bishop in Mrs Engel’s ,”Rite of Sodomy”.
Try to understand what these filthy perverted clerics have done to families and victims and the Faithful ! What if your Grandchild was being groomed by a sodomite priest? Would you still be defending the Bishop?
The Sheriff and the Deputies of your County praised fr Gallagher for reporting the priest which led to a confession.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-whistleblower-priest-lawsuit-20170111-story.html
Our Lord must have many millstones.
Read his ABS’s comments here
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-fr-john-gallagher-case-chief-deputy.html‘
and tell me if anything he quotes is worth the read?
……….ABS, I live in the next town over from you.
Obviously you know nothing about your own Bishop much less what is heretical .
The controversy was about Grace and the Thomists and Molinists disagreed about it vehemently.
Officially agreeing that the partisans of each can be considered orthodox is a compromise
Sweepoutthefilth.
So, how’s the case going for your fiend the insane priest?
You have NO idea how crazy he is but those whom ABS knows from Holy Name do kn ow.
He is insane
So, it makes sense that you would believe him.
Adios, clown
Contact me when the case is resolved 🙂
Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders
Was written by the putative Pope when he was Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that document over-turned LONG STANDING prohibitions of admitting sodomites into seminaries.
Now, thanks to the cleric y’all are fighting to convince others he is still Pope, a man who was working as a sodomite prostitute can be admitted to a seminary.
AND, it was the man y’all want to convince others he is still Pope who stated that the Church has profound respect for sodomites.
Yeah, he is all abut Tradition…
Talking about playing politics with Popes makes for, um, interesting bedfellows.
Please post your credentials as a Psychiatrist or Psychologist .
Otherwise, this is outright slander just like your Bishop.
He was “insane ” enough to alert the authorities .
Just because your Hispanic friends did not like the Irish priest, it does not qualify as a mental disorder diagnosis .
The Diocese is pouring YOUR money into an appeal because a Judge ruled he could sue the Bishop and Diocese for calumny and slander.
Faithful Catholic’s donations have been wasted on frivolous counter suits to defend the evils of the Bishops and the perverted priests they shelter.
That alone is a heretical qualifier even though it is not formal.
They hide the Truth , rather than exposing it to the light.
If this action by Fr Gallgher is squelched on a technicality that the civil authorities cannot get involved in Church matters, that does NOT take a thing away from Fr Gallagher’s truthful character or give one iota of credence to the Bishop’s public lies about him.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-priest-praised-in-us-police-letter-to-the-vatican-1.2523108
Furthermore ABS, No one here supports Ratzinger either as a Pope or as a bastion of the Faith. We know quite well that he covered up for sex abusers even as head of the CDF by denying the pleas three times in writing from a CA Bishop who was trying to get a serial pedophile defrocked.
If you carefully followed Louie’s posts and the comments , you would be aware that the majority here know that none of the Conciliar Popes have been followers of Catholic Tradition.
You just pop onto Catholic blogs defending pederasts and posing as a Traditional Catholic.
But the church said the boy’s father, not Father Gallagher, called the police, a point Gallagher had conceded on Monday. Gallagher also had been commended for his help in a letter from the sheriff’s office to a cardinal.
However, the church went further.
“Father Gallagher has publicly stated that he contacted the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office the evening the incident occurred. The sheriff’s report indicates that Father Gallagher was not the one who made the report.
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-govt–politics/diocese-strikes-back-against-priest-assertions/rrCywRU3DIzJtibfRJL7KJ/
Sweep. ABS will assume you are as ignorant about the facts as you appear to be about other matters – for instance, you make this easily defeated claim…
Furthermore ABS, No one here supports Ratzinger either as a Pope…
This is how the Bishop ABS’ supports gives Honor and Glory to God alone at Sunday Mass.
“How dare this bishop use the church of God to discuss his dirty laundry. Shame on him,” said Theresa Annos of Delray Beach, who said her husband stopped her from nearly yelling out from the middle of the church when the priest at St. Jude Cathlic Church in Boca Raton was reading Barbarito’s letter.
http://theinsider.blog.mypalmbeachpost.com/2016/02/02/some-parishioners-angry-at-bishop-over-critical-letter-read-during-mass/
…as apolitical gathering to further his agenda.
LOL ……………….and YOU label me a clown?
Sweepy. Name on- just one – communicant at Holy Name you know personally who can say Fr Gallagher was not insane
You don’t know any member of Holy Name, do you?
ABS does 🙂 More than one, but one who has been there for over 30 years…
But go on, continue defending a proven liar and a lunatic who was a rank racist who hated Hispanics.
Go on…you are doing a good job assassinating your own character 🙂
Assume NOTHING ! That is your problem you make rash assumptions while you yourself do not know either your Bishop’s history or the facts of this case. YOUR Bishop has it on the record in the Diocese he came from that he does not believe ANY pederast cleric’s name should be made known in the Press.
Read a little more carefully ……exceptions are made for “clowns” like yourself.
“you would be aware that the majority here”
The Sheriff and the Deputies of your County praised fr Gallagher for reporting the priest which led to a confession.
You’ve made the false claim several tines, Sweepy even though Fr Gallagher himself publicly admits it wasn’t him who told the cops.
But the church said the boy’s father, not Father Gallagher, called the police, a point Gallagher had conceded on Monday.<
“Father Gallagher has publicly stated that he contacted the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office the evening the incident occurred. The sheriff’s report indicates that Father Gallagher was not the one who made the report.
You’re doing a heck of a job, Sweepy
Ahh ABS, now we have the core reason you are defending a pederast priest. Because you think the Irish priest is a racist.
The Sheriff and the Deputies of your County praised fr Gallagher for reporting the priest which led to a confession.
You’ve made the false claim several tines, Sweepy even though Fr Gallagher himself publicly admits it wasn’t him who told the cops.
But the church said the boy’s father, not Father Gallagher, called the police, a point Gallagher had conceded on Monday.
“Father Gallagher has publicly stated that he contacted the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office the evening the incident occurred. The sheriff’s report indicates that Father Gallagher was not the one who made the report.
You’re doing a heck of a job, Sweepy.
You know, you are about as mentally sound as the poor insane priest you are lying about..
Adios
When LIBERALS scream “Racism” the conversation ends.
“Yet despite the internal church controversy that has emerged, the Sheriff’s Office maintains that Gallagher’s help led to a speedier arrest of Palimattom.”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-priest-investigation-recordings-20160205-story.html
From ABS own self description
MALE
Occupation know-it-all gaseous gadfly
Location Wellington, So. Flo., United States
Introduction ABS is an elderly crank who does not know one-half of what he thinks he knows but he supplies for his ignorance with steely confidence and puissant conviction.
Interests Jesus Christ and His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Favorite Movies First two Godfather movies
Favorite Music Everything from sacred polyphony to folk
Favorite Books Bible.
For lurkers
Father John Gallagher has spent much of the past week portraying himself to media outlets in Ireland and Florida as a whistleblower punished by the Catholic Diocese of Palm Beach for alerting authorities to a pedophile priest.
But with the blessing of Bishop Gerald Barbarito, another version of Gallagher is emerging from diocese employees and parishioners. They paint an unflattering portrait of an egotistical problem-priest who spread lies about the diocese because he was passed over for a promotion for at least the second time in six years.
“The only reason that this is going on is that John is very upset and angry that he was not named pastor. That’s the bottom line. He wanted to be pastor of Holy Name so bad,’’ said Father Nestor Rodriguez, pastor at St. Ann’s Church in West Palm Beach. “John is a disgruntled employee of the diocese. He needs serious professional help.’’
Among allegations made to The Palm Beach Post about the 60-year-old priest, who rose from humble Northern Ireland origins and bounced around 11 pastoral assignments since coming to Florida in 2000, are:
• Gallagher sparked numerous complaints from Hispanic parishioners at Holy Name of Jesus Church in West Palm Beach. They say he drove a wedge into the congregation’s 2,000 members by mistreating Hispanics and trying to push them away from the church because he said they didn’t contribute enough to the collection plate.
• He harassed a Cuban priest, Father Jose Crucet, prompting Hispanic parishioners to demand Gallagher’s transfer. When Crucet resigned because of stress, the diocese, upon Gallagher’s recommendation, replaced Crucet with Father Jose Palimattom, who was arrested two months into his new assignment for showing pornographic images to a 14-year-old boy after Mass in January 2015.
…
• He transformed the living room of his parochial house into a piano bar where church employees served drinks and cleaned dishes at “high roller” parties he hosted for friends and parishioners.
Barbarito, whose diocese has issued two press releases this week discrediting Gallagher, took another extraordinary step Friday. He ordered priests to read a letter during Mass this weekend addressing Gallagher and his “unfounded allegations” that the diocese “tried to ‘cover up’ the inappropriate behavior of” Palimattom.
“Father Gallagher’s harmful assertions are an embarrassment to my brother priests as well as to me,” Barbarito says in the five-paragraph letter, which closes with the bishop asking parishioners “to pray for Father Gallagher.”
Gallagher on Friday referred questions about the diocese’s allegations to his attorney, who called the assertions a “smear” campaign meant to discredit a good priest.
“This shows what they are about — retaliation. That’s all there is,” said Robert Flummerfelt, an attorney with Canon Law Services in Las Vegas. “If they want to go down and fight in the gutter with Father Gallagher, he can do the same thing.”
In the spotlight
The priest-vs.-bishop spat appeared to start when Gallagher was passed over for a promotion at Holy Name last spring. That prompted him to start reaching out to media outlets with reports that the diocese changed the locks on his parochial house and transferred him to a Stuart church after he refused church orders to put Palimattom on a plane to India rather than report him to law enforcement.
The allegations seemed sensational considering how the Catholic Church has been trying to bounce back from an international scandal of priests abusing kids, a troubling episode currently being replayed in the Oscar-nominated movie “Spotlight.”
Gallagher’s assertions also sharply contrasted with the zero-tolerance policy adopted by the Palm Beach Diocese in 2002 after the resignation of the second of two bishops in four years over charges of improper sexual relationships with teenage boys.
To bolster his case, Gallagher supplied media outlets with a letter written to Cardinal Sean O’Malley by Chief Deputy Michael Gauger of the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, praising Gallagher for his help in prosecuting Palimattom.
The Irish Independent newspaper published Gallagher’s assertions Monday, prompting several media outlets in Ireland and Florida, including The Palm Beach Post, to pursue the story.
The diocese initially responded with vague denials. But when the stories prompted a protest Tuesday in front of diocese offices in Palm Beach Gardens by members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, the diocese went on the offensive.
Although Barbarito has made no public comments about Gallagher, he authorized priests and parishioners to talk to The Post.
“He is very smart. He is conniving. He is self-centered. He is all about John Gallagher,’’ said Luis Trinidad, who worked under Gallagher as the director of Hispanic Ministries at Holy Name.
Hispanic anger
Holy Name, on Military Trail just south of Gun Club Road, is a blue-collar parish with members from different cultural backgrounds. Last year, Rodriguez said, he and Barbarito sat through “many, many appointments” with parishioners, “both Anglo and Hispanic,’’ who were unhappy with Gallagher.
“One person after the other came up and said, ‘We don’t have anything personally against Father John, but we just feel he doesn’t understand us, he doesn’t interact with us.’ They were very disappointed at his performance. They felt cut off,” Rodriguez said.
Many congregants were upset that Gallagher would call the police on Hispanic kids who were playing basketball on church grounds.
“From day one he came in with the idea of getting rid of Hispanics in the parish,’’ Trinidad said. “He was always being a bully.’’
Jesus Lopez, a Holy Name parishioner for nearly 30 years, said he never saw Gallagher at the doors of the church shaking hands with church members after Mass.
“Maybe he did for the English Mass but not for the Spanish Mass,’’ Lopez said. “A lot of people ended up leaving the church until Father Gallagher was gone from here. I left for several months.”
Other parishioners complained that Gallagher was rarely available “when people would visit and seek counsel. Some people asked him to visit the sick, but he would not do that,” said Father Tom Barrett, who served on a committee that reviewed Gallagher’s performance at Holy Name.
Crucet, who has been with the diocese 15 years, said he served at Holy Name for three years. But the last four months there were stressful because he said he was harassed by Gallagher, who often changed his schedule at the last minute and parked his car in a way that prevented Crucet from accessing his car.
“He made me feel vulnerable, like he might manufacture something against me. He really had it in for me,” Crucet said.
“It deteriorated my health. I couldn’t sleep. My blood pressure was up. I was always worried. He accused me of stealing. He once showed me a sheriff’s card and said this man is looking for you.”
Crucet has since moved to St. Ignatius. “I looked in the English dictionary to find a word that properly reflects who he is. That word is ‘evil-doer,’ he said. “That defines the experience I had with him in the church. He made me suffer, he made me get sick. I decided to leave because I did not want confrontation.”
More than 150 people attended a meeting last February to air their grievances, which included accusations that Gallagher was trying to push away Hispanic members because they made up nearly one-third of the parish but contributed just 11 percent to collections.
“Over and over again, they commented that they were being discriminated against, they were not being treated justly and they were basically being abandoned and mistreated,’’ Rodriguez said.
Barrett added: “It was very much a groundswell of discontent.”
+++++++++++++
To any sentient soul, that behavior is called racist and it is racist whether it is said by a liberal or a conservative.
ABS loves it when you quote him. Thank you
Pitiful white ethnomasochists are deathly afraid of cries of RAAAAACCISS. Whenever anyone, including a white ethnomasochist, accuses you of being RAAAACCISSS, the best response is this: “And?” This fries their brains, as they’re expecting you to dutifully squirm, grovel, and deny it. If things continue, say: “I’m just a race realist. For example, I say that nothing makes more sense in this world than ‘white flight.’ But if you insist on branding me a RAAAAACCISSS, that’s fine.” Your hysterical, fully conditioned interlocutor won’t be able to resist further engaging you. Should you choose to continue discussion with this simp—and you may well not choose to do so and thus further enrage your processed interlocutor—you’ve now opened the door to explaining, with magisterial calmness in contrast with the shrieker’s vulgar hysteria, that race realism means that you have no hate for other races but simply don’t deny evidentiary reality pertaining to race, just as you don’t deny reality in all matters. A discussion of, for example, crime might then ensue wherein you’d explain, for instance, that the murder rate in NY City would drop by an astonishing 91% without blacks and browns in the city (and many other cities). Similarly astonishing facts might follow, such as the borderline retarded average IQ of Somalis and many other Africans.
But really, it would all most likely be a waste of time, so complete is modern processing concerning race, especially among virtue signaling white ethnomasochists. Thus in the end, the best response to cries of RAAAAAACCISSSS is probably this and no more: “And?” Then calmly walk away with a look of utter, divine tranquility on your face.
And?
By the way, notice that for hustlers like ABS, it’s quite fine for hispanics and all non-whites to rally together on the basis of race. But if whites do so, they’re RAAAACCCISS. Sadly, most whites, so infected are they with the pathological complex of white ethnomasochist oikophobia and suicidal xenophilia, will then do anything they can to prove they aren’t RAAAACCISS. Just plain pitiful.
Alphonse, I just cannot believe this guy OR Barbarito either.
The priest did no shake hands with the Hispanics after the Spanish Mass?
He turned the rectory into a piano bar?
He liked to sing and play the piano and have a few drinks with his parish friends whom Barbarito called “high rollers”. If you could only see the rectory and where it is located you would laugh your head off at that comment. Meanwhile Barbarito is pictured hobnobbing with millionaires on Palm Beach Island, many with Jewish last names!
BUT ABS does not like them either because on Ash Wednesday he bragged he went out to the island and drove around with his ash cross on his head. He was EVANGELIZING ! I am sure they were all impressed!
I think the real problem here with the parishioners was that Fr Gallagher did not speak Spanish, is a straight chaste heterosexual priest and had the guts to take action when he saw a pederast grooming a teen parishioner.
His biggest crime was that he aided the police in getting the priest to confess and even admitting he molested little boys back in India adding that “it was their culture to do so” and that his previous Bishop was aware of his proclivities.
The REAL sin Bishop Barbarito saw was that a priest in his Diocese was named in the News as an admitted pedophile.
“OGDENSBURG, N.Y · Bishop Gerald Barbarito, poised to take over the Diocese of Palm Beach in September, repeatedly has pledged to remove from the ministry any priests found to have abused a child and to help abuse victims in any way the church can, but he has seen no need to publicly name accused priests.”
“As a church-trained lawyer, Barbarito has said the rights of accused priests to their privacy and reputations also must be protected as guaranteed under church canonlaw.”
He believes priests should not go on trial OR be publicly named.
SO PEDERASTS GO FREE out into society to Pray on children and offend again.
Adios, Tonto Muerto Cerebro !
says it all…
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2017/01/the-fr-john-gallagher-case-chief-deputy.html
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The pope’s decree communicated (5 September, 1607) to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, HAS NOT BEEN REACHED, and BOTH ORDERS, consequently, MAINTAIN THEIR RESPECTIVE THEORIES, just as any other THEOLOGICAL OPINION. ”
The key ABS is the issue you put forward regarded theological opinions (i.e. unsettled doctrinal matters). However, Louie was not referring to compromises with theological opinions. He was referring to settled doctrinal matters. The Church has never compromised on settled doctrines.
In essence, your post is irrelevant.
“The Church has never compromised on settled doctrines.”
Therefore, of course, the Vatican II “Conciliar Church” is not THE Catholic Church, and everything it says and does is irrelevant.
Agreed.
Tom, it’s on every Friday night in the parish hall.
Everyone else thinks that a grown man who refers to himself in the third person is insane.
You do know that Jesus was not only BROWN (aaah!) but also a JEW (double aaaah!)
While you and your disgusting friends tie the nooses and light the ovens, us actual Catholics will go on being Catholic and opposing you to your faces.
Please, please, please, go find a tent revival where the KKK is an honored guest. Or go join a lunatic cult. Or go crawl in a hole and rot away.
Whatever you do, please get your sick bigotry out of my Catholic Church.
I eagerly await the day you’re pulled over by a black cop and can’t resist sharing your astoundingly bigoted beliefs with him. This will only be sweetened by watching you go before a black judge represented by a black public defender for assault on said police officer.
You’re sick.
You do know that 2/3 of the global Catholic Church is BROWN (panic!) or BLACK (double panic!!), right? Or does being a racist make you deaf as well as blind?
Please find another faith.
Nope. The problem is that L.G. is not settled doctrine. It appears to be novel with several claims having no apparent connection with Tradition but the church has yet to definitely settle the dispute
His biggest crime was that he aided the police in getting the priest to confess and even admitting he molested little boys back in India adding that “it was their culture to do so” and that his previous Bishop was aware of his proclivities.
You’re doing a heck of a job, Sweepy.
Keep those lies coming.
The repost did not notify the Cops, the parents of the boy did.
The priest you are defending did not notify the Diocese.
Bishop Barbarito is absolutely right.
There have been MANY false accusations made against Priests but you want all accusations made public.
No wonder you lie on defense of the insane priest, you are as unbalanced as he is
And, when there is objective evidence of prejudice against a race, that is called racism.
BUT ABS does not like them either because on Ash Wednesday he bragged he went out to the island and drove around with his ash cross on his head. He was EVANGELIZING ! I am sure they were all impressed!
Ha ha ha. You are demented. ABS did not think it was necessary to point out to the sane that post was a sarcastic joke
Sweepy, your public lying is destroying your reputation. It was not Father Gallagher who reported the perv priest. It was the father of the boy who reported it.
Sure, Faith Gallagher lied about it in print a few times, but what he said are lies
Fr. Galager did not notify the Diocese until the next day.
It was Father Galagher who invited the perv priest to serve at Holy Name.
Sweepy, you have allowed your hatred of perv priests to blind you to the facts and your irrational hatred of Bishop Barbarito has caused you to slander him but ABS knows that will not trouble your dead conscience.
http://www.diocesepb.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&ArticleId=8590&returnTo=main
Like affirmative action.
You’re right. It’s not settled doctrine. It’s a contradiction of settled doctrine. Therefore, no compromise is permitted.
The entirety of it is not which is obvious if you were to read it
Louie is specifically speaking of collegiality in this blog entry. Collegiality is not traditional Catholic teaching. It contradicts traditional Catholic teaching.
The doctrine of Vatican II states that the college of bishops together with the pope possess supreme authority of the Church. This teaching alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church. This is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.
I can’t help but not trust de Mattei – I found his book on Vatican 2 long winded and weak.