One of the surest signs that the Church is indeed flirting with suicide in our day (as foretold by the future Pope Pius XII in reference to the warnings issued by Our Lady of Fatima) is the view of the priesthood so often put forth by high ranking prelates, up to and including the pope.
Before addressing the sad state of current affairs directly, let’s begins by considering the portrait of the priesthood painted by Pope St. Pius X in the Apostolic Exhortation, Haerent Animo, wherein the Holy Father makes his intent quite clear:
Our first and chief concern is that all who are invested with the priestly ministry should be in every way fitted for the discharge of their responsibilities.
As for the nature of those responsibilities, Pope St. Pius X is equally clear:
Whether your immediate task be to assist, to protect, to heal, to make peace, let your one aim and most ardent desire be to win or to secure souls for Christ.
While exhorting his priests and bishops to strive for the sanctity necessary to perform their duties well, the Holy Father touches on the essence of priestly identity, and he does so in such way as to indicate that this fundamentally important aspect of our Catholic faith was already most surely known and embraced by all concerned as he wrote.
For instance, while urging those in the clerical state to keep watch over their own souls, Pope St. Pius writes:
These grave words apply, no doubt, to all who have authority in the Church, but they apply in a special way to us who, despite our unworthiness, by the grace of God exercise supreme power within the Church.
Here we find the Holy Father referring to the hierarchical structure of the Church; speaking as if it is simply a given that the priest is an authority figure in his own right, while the bishop is charged in a particular way with the exercise of supreme power.
This power is given to the bishops by God so that they may:
…devote themselves unceasingly and efficaciously to the formation of Christ in those who [the priests], by their calling, have the responsibility of forming Christ in others.
Again, one notes that the Holy Father writes as if it is simply common knowledge that the priesthood exists for the purpose of forming Christ in others; namely, the laity.
Pope St. Pius X expounds on the manner of this formation further, saying:
As his envoys, we must win the minds of men for his doctrine and his law by first observing them ourselves; sharing as we do in his power to deliver souls from the bondage of sin, we must strive by every means to avoid becoming entangled in these toils of sin.
Notice that no sense whatsoever is conveyed in Haerent Animo that priestly sanctity alone has an attractive power capable of drawing souls to Christ, much less forming them in His image.
Rather, it is clear that Pope St. Pius X considers priestly sanctity as but a “first” necessary step that enables the priest to carry out the work of “securing souls for Christ” as he uses his God-given authority to impart His saving truth.
The Christian people rightly look to them [priests] for a genuine model of Christian virtue … The priest then is the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Everyone knows that he fulfills this function chiefly by the teaching of Christian truth…
Pope St. Pius X is at pains in Haerent Animo to urge his priests to make time to fortify themselves for ministry by way of, “prayer, meditation, spiritual reading, examination of conscience,” all unto the formation of “priestly virtues.”
Not surprisingly, the saintly pope points to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the offering of which lies at the very heart of sacerdotal identity, as central to the priests’ striving.
But it is particularly as the ministers of Jesus Christ in the great sacrifice which is constantly renewed with abiding power for the salvation of the world, that we have the duty of conforming our minds to that spirit in which he offered himself as an unspotted victim to God on the altar of the Cross.
At this, let’s briefly recap what we has been conveyed in just these few excerpts from Haerent Animo :
The priest is an avenue of grace for God’s people; it is he from whom authority, right doctrine and virtue is imparted to the laity whose salvation is the priest’s “one aim and most ardent desire.”
Pope St. Pius X leaves no room for doubt that it is entirely necessary for the priest to detach from the secular order in sufficient measure as to make time for forming himself in holiness, that he may be well prepared to form those in his care, and the offering of Holy Mass is central to his efforts.
In other words, the priest must labor to attain the odor of sanctity for himself, lest he be found lacking and unable to impart it to others.
Pope Francis, by contrast, has frequently urged priests to depart from the parishes, often exhorting them to spend more time in the bowels of society among the dangers that lurk therein; to go to the “peripheries” in order to “take on the smell of the sheep.”
This program is well in keeping with his legacy in Buenos Aries, where as Cardinal Archbishop he encouraged his priests to take up residence in the favelas (slums) where drugs and sex are treated as commodities, to “serve” the poor in the midst of their misery.
That no small number of these “slum priests” are said to have fallen into grave sin along the way would come as no surprise to Pope St. Pius X who wrote:
A priest cannot avoid daily contact with a corrupt society; frequently, in the very exercise of pastoral charity, he must fear the insidious attacks of the infernal serpent. Is it not all too easy even for religious souls to be tarnished by contact with the world?
The inverted model of priesthood espoused by Pope Francis is such that it is imagined that even the heathens and heretics have something to offer that the priest desperately needs.
… In the awareness of being called to bravely guard the faith entrusted, he [the bishop, priest, and deacon] shall listen to the people. He is in fact cognizant of always having something to learn, even from those who may still be far from the faith and from the Church. With his confreres, then, all this must lead to taking on a new attitude marked by sharing, joint responsibility and communion. (Pope Francis, General Audience, 12 November 2014)
So impoverished is the view of the priesthood espoused by Pope Francis that the world, her peoples, and her cultures are imagined to take on the animating role of Christ and the immutable doctrines of the faith.
The same Spirit who inspired the Gospels and who acts in the Church also inspires the preacher to hear the faith of God’s people and to find the right way to preach at each Eucharist. Christian preaching thus finds in the heart of people and their culture a source of living water, which helps the preacher to know what must be said and how to say it. (Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium)
In keeping with his desire for a “new attitude” wherein members of the sacred hierarchy actively seek a relationship with the laity that is “marked by sharing, joint responsibility and communion,” it should come as little surprise that Pope Francis is also eager to promote a new attitude concerning Holy Orders itself.
The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness.”(ibid.)
Note: Pope Francis is quoting his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, out of context, but we will set those details aside for the present discussion.
In any case, those with sensus Catholicus know perfectly well that the sacramental power of the priest (as well as his authority to teach and to govern) has little to do with mere function and everything to do with the unique dignity derived from his ontological configuration to Christ.
Undaunted, Pope Francis pushes the envelope further still, saying:
The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. (ibid.)
At this, two things stand out in stark contrast to the traditional understanding of the priesthood; namely, its exalted dignity and its actual purpose.
First, one notes that our current pope imagines that the dignity derived from Holy Orders is no greater than that which is imparted at Baptism; something that even the most pertinacious of heretics have received.
Indeed, Pope St. Pius X would likely have shuddered to see such ideas even being entertained by simple laymen, much less promoted by a Successor to the Office of Peter.
In Haerent Animo alone the Holy Father mentions the “high dignity” of the priesthood numerous times, even going so far as to provide a lengthy quote from Saint Charles Borromeo that reads in part:
If we would only bear in mind, dearly beloved brethren [in the priesthood], the exalted character of the things that the Lord God has placed in our hands, what unbounded influence would not this have in impelling us to lead lives worthy of ecclesiastics! . . . How, then, can I be so ungrateful for such condescension and love as to sin against Him, to offend His honor, to pollute this body which is His? How can I come to defile this high dignity, this life consecrated to his service?
Secondly, and perhaps most noteworthy, is Pope Francis’ suggestion that the purpose for which the priesthood was established is “the service of God’s people,” when indeed it exists for the salvation of souls.
While one might argue that “teaching, sanctifying, and governing” God’s people unto salvation is the ultimate service one might render, and perhaps this is what the Holy Father has in mind when speaking of “service,” the tenor of his entire pontificate suggests that Pope Francis has more earthbound endeavors in mind.
On those occasions when “salvation” is mentioned, it is often done in a context stripped of Catholic meaning, devoid of any calls to conversion; with the unique role of the priest in creating members of the Holy Catholic Church, the solitary Ark of Salvation established by Christ, at times, apparently, even deliberately avoided.
In Evangelii Gaudium, for instance, Pope Francis writes:
The Father desires the salvation of every man and woman, and his saving plan consists in “gathering up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10). Our mandate is to “go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15), for “the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God” (Rom 8:19). Here, “the creation” refers to every aspect of human life; consequently, the mission of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ has a universal destination.
Here, in the major agenda setting document of his pontificate, Pope Francis refers to both the “mission” and the “mandate” of the Church, and yet curiously missing is any mention whatsoever of “teaching” and “baptizing,” both of which are entirely central to both the mission that was given to the Church by Christ, as well as the identity and the ministry of the priest.
Note very well the Holy Father’s reference to Mark 16:15.
The very next verse reads, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned,” making it perfectly clear that a crucial link exists between teaching and baptism and salvation.
Could it be that Pope Francis deliberately avoided citing this verse because it flies in the face of the “new attitude” that he intends to promote?
Let’s take a closer look at Pope Francis’ treatment of baptism and teaching relative to the identity and ministry of the priest.
As it concerns baptism, recall (as mentioned above) that Pope Francis imagines that the priest finds “living water” in the “heart of people and their culture.”
Is the baptismal language being employed here a deliberate attempt to invert the image of the priest as the avenue of grace used by God to continue the work of redemption by calling men to the waters of baptism?
Consider the sermon Pope Francis delivered to the priests of Rome at his first Chrism Mass:
We need to “go out”, then, in order to experience our own anointing, its power and its redemptive efficacy: to the “outskirts” where there is suffering, bloodshed, blindness that longs for sight, and prisoners in thrall to many evil masters
The baptismal overtones in this twisted scenario are impossible to ignore; Pope Francis’ view of the priesthood is so thoroughly inverted that he desires priests who seek among the laity an “anointing” that supposedly has “redemptive power.”
We find a similar undoing of the priest’s true mission and identity with regard to teaching as well.
Recall, for example, Pope Francis’ insistence (also cited above) that the sacred hierarchy is called to learn even from those “far from the faith and from the Church.”
Lest there be any doubt whatsoever as to Francis’ desire to invert the roles of the priest and the layperson by stripping the former of his exalted dignity, consider very carefully his “prayer” given on the vigil of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops last October:
Above all, we ask the Holy Spirit, for the gift of listening for the Synod Fathers: to listen in the manner of God, so that they may hear, with him, the cry of the people; to listen to the people, until they breathe the will to which God calls us.
The “new attitude marked by sharing, joint responsibility and communion” encouraged by Pope Francis among the members of the sacred hierarchy is coming into sharper focus:
The sheep are imagined to be oracles of God’s will, and the instructors and the anointers of the shepherds.
At this, the inversion is all but complete.
This view of the priesthood is so impoverished that it can hardly even be said that Pope Francis sees those in Holy Orders as equals in dignity with the laity; rather, he appears to imagine that they stand in need of obtaining God’s grace as dispensed from their hands in order just to keep pace! (With this in mind, the deplorable image above perhaps takes on more meaning.)
Many more examples could be cited, but for the sake of brevity (the limits of which have already been well exceeded) I will conclude with the following admonition given by Pope St. Pius X; words that seem to condemn many in the Church today, not the least of whom is his current successor.
There are some who think, and even declare openly, that the true measure of the merits of a priest is his dedication to the service of others; consequently, with an almost complete disregard for the cultivation of the virtues which lead to the personal sanctification of the priest (these they describe as passive virtues), they assert that all his energies and fervor should be directed to the development and practice of what they call the active virtues. One can only be astonished by this gravely erroneous and pernicious teaching.
Speaking of “inverted priesthood”…
tap, tap, hmm, hmm, – one move here, one mover there – tipi-ti-tap…
Wow, I feel myself all shaken up already! Ready to digest and embrace Francis’ new theology of “mercy”! 😉
I can’t even finish this post. It angers me so much that we have a Pope that doesn’t have a Catholic bone in his body.
Mr Verrechio, your writing on this papal scandal ought to be much more widely published. How the truth is despised in the world, and the worldly, corrupted Church!
Besides prayer, etc., how can we convince others of the ongoing attacks on the Deposit of Faith and the Natural Moral Law by the Pope and countless bishops and priests when it is all so flagrant and repeated, no longer hidden or subtle? The diabolic disorientation of the many Catholics who declare loyalty to the Whole Faith when it comes to the the manifest heresies and evil-doing of the pope is most distressing. A veil has been pulled over eyes that pre-Francis could clearly see such evil, when they condemned same. This is what’s so frightening and makes it clear what diabolic works are behind it all.
I pray these souls will be once again able to see the truth, very soon, and will turn away from evil, even if it comes form the pope.
Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
Many question if Bergoglio is a true Pope. Now we must question the authenticity of his priesthood. I agree with lorirevealer—Does Bergoglio have a Catholic bone in his body? Remember the outrageous desecration of the Holy Eucharist at his mega mass in Manila. Not a word of protest from his non-Catholic mouth!!!!!
Lord, help us all!!!
Bergoglio is no longer Catholic let alone pope. Heresy upon heresy must be too much to overlook. He has even gotten to the point of saying himself, “This might be considered heretical, but…” However, we do have a Catholic pope–Benedict. Serious observers cannot possibly believe he left office absent any coercion by others. Doesn’t anyone see the irony–and divine intervention–in having a pope “emeritus” still among us while modernists foist an anti-pope upon what is NOT the Church, but a majority of heretical or weak clerics and a worldwide collection of buildings. None of that is the true Church. Unfortunately, millions–failed by those very clerics in teaching the tenets of our faith–will follow like lemmings over the cliff, especially come October. Thank God Almighty for the Burke’s…and Lefebvres. That is where you will find the Church. It will be the others who are, indeed, the schismatics. Multi enim sunt vocati pauci vero electi.
Hot off the press!
How many wake-up calls do sleeping Catholics need?????
BXVI is only “catholic” in comparison to Bergoglio, although I would agree that with BXVI, at least there was some kind of outward SEMBLANCE of Catholicism. Bergoglio has done away with all pretending and is completely in-your-face about his heresies. Some people are still blinded unfortunately.
Ratzinger/BXVI is on record as uttering and writing a number of heresies none of which he has ever retracted to the best of my knowledge:
SH: Well, that’s all my questions, my lord. Now, when I type this I want to make sure all my quotes are accurate, so I will send you a transcript before you go to Veneta…
HL: No, no, these questions, you have not addressed the essential things – I appreciate your questions but you did not touch anything essential in your questions.
SH: What more, My Lord?
HL: Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.
SH: When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does?
HL: No, but he has never retracted his errors.
SH: But My Lord, if he has not retracted them, does he not still retain them? Of what are you speaking? Can you be more specific? I must admit I am no theologian and I have not read any of his works. Was this when he was a cardinal?
HL: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.
SH: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
HL: Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.
SH: In what sense, My Lord?
HL: He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins, did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ’s atonement of sins.
SH: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
HL: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.
SH: This sounds like Luther.
HL: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.
SH: My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
HL: No. But he has never retracted these statements.
SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
HL: No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects “an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction…some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love” (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).
SH: What other heresies, My Lord?
HL: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…
SH: This cannot be true…
HL: It is very true. He re-reads, re-interprets all the dogmas of the Church. This is it. This is what he calls the “hermeneutic” in his discourse of 22 December 2005.
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights…
HL: Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.
From Mr Ferrara’s article linked above:
“Francis pretended not to notice that she [the female “archbishop” head of the Church of Sweden] is a fake lady bishop presiding over a pro-abortion pseudo-Church that diabolically mocks the Sacraments of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony”.
No offense – but how does Mr Ferrara know that Francis “PRETENDED not to notice”? Isn’t it more likely that Francis actually BELIEVES (given his past track record collaborating with recently deceased “Bishop” Palmer) that she is in fact a bishop of this amorphous conciliar “Church of Christ” in which the ‘Catholic Church’ merely subsists in?
Those who still believe that a pertinacious heretic, like Francis, is a true Pope, may be interested to hear that the monumental theological work De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”) of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., has now been translated into English for the first time ever. The translator is Mr. Ryan Grant of Mediatrix Press, and the English-speaking world owes him a tremendous amount of gratitude.
The whole chapter on whether a Pope can be deposed is now available online here: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/#.VXdhUrmeDGd
We have to just realize that he is crazy and hold on tight. As he said, his pontificate will not be long. I think he is angering enough Cardinals and Bishops that there will not be a repeat in the next conclave. Our only hope at this point is the intervention of Our Lady of Fatima.
He is a modernist. He is not crazy. He is cunning and believe me everything he does it done full awareness of the implications. Let Pius X tell you:
“It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. “
There is also this recent public prayer of Jorge Bergoglio, delivered in Sarajevo. It begins (emphases added):
“Almighty and eternal God,
good and merciful Father;
Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is visible and invisible;
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,
King and Lord of the past, of the present and of the future;
sole judge of every man and woman,
Who reward Your faithful with eternal glory!
We, the descendants of Abraham according to our faith in You, the one God,
Jews, Christians and Muslims…”.
Every Sunday, Bergoglio proclaims his belief that:
“one Lord, Jesus Christ…will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”.
Bearing in mind that those who would defend Bergoglio’s blasphemous utterance, “God does not exist”, point to his subsequent words (to an exclusively Catholic congregation), “[t]here is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. Not in Sarajevo, apparently.
Bergoglio does not need any warnings about his words.
Yes, a great project. I read the first Bellarmine book that Mr Grant translated into English (for the first time) on The Marks of the Church, and various heresies.
Of course, he is not “crazy” in any sense that is material to the issues with which we are concerned. He knows what he is doing and is deliberately doing it.
Re Francis’ exhortation for a “new attitude” wherein members of the sacred hierarchy actively seek a relationship with the laity that is “marked by sharing, joint responsibility and communion”; to me this keeps punching towards the non-apostolic ‘preesthood’ that Bergoglio has been tryinig to sell for a long time. The campaign agaisnst Aposotlic Succession is building. The campaign against the Holy See is building.
“In his epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, St. Ignatius, Martyr, says that the priesthood is the most sublime of all created dignities: “The apex of dignities is the priesthood.” (St Alphonsus de Ligouri) http://www.fisheaters.com/holyorders3.html
St John Crysostom: “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! What a marvel! What love of God to man! He who sits on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith! (On the Priesthood, Book III.4)
In protestantism there are pretty much two, one or no sarcraments. It would seem that Bergoglio is preaching the ‘one sacrament’ variety of protestantism.
It comes to my mind the validity of the novus ordo ordinations. Pope Francis was the first Pope in history ordained this way. The theological and moral implications would be horrendous if this to be true that I don’t even want to think about it too much (starting from all my confessions to NO priest). However, it is astonishing all the things that Pope Francis says and one wonders not only if he is the Pope but if he is a valid priest?!
I agree with you. The thing is that Pope Francis makes his liberal precedesors almost ultramontanist in comparison with him. But the reality is that they are all liberal. One objective difference among them and Pope Feancis is that the latter was ordained by the novus ordo rite while his predecessors were ordained by he traditional rite. I don’t know for sure the implications of this, but when we still see some “priesthood dignity in JPII, BXVI maybe it is due to the fact that they were truly ordained priest while Pope Francis is at least for me dubious he is even a valid priest.
He was being sarcastic. Of course Poor Francis believes he’s on the right path. His whole religious life has been steeped in modernist thought. We might even feel sorry for him – he has never been taught the Truth. In fact we are obliged to pray for him. Nothing will save him but Our Lady’s compassion for him as her ignorant son who himself has been led astray.
What’s the point of simply pointing out his terrible influence on souls? That is important because any soul that is educated to the Truth is one more soul that may be saved. But in all charity we must pray for Poor Francis!
Does it really matter that we know there is a way to get rid of this disastrous pope if there is no will in the hierarchy to actually do it?
Here is a terrific article that goes a long way to explain how the current state of affairs in new-church came about.
Brainwashing and silencing are key.
Someone in another combox suggested we let our faithful priests (if we know any) that we will support them when the real crunch comes. I mean how long will it be before faithful priests will be commanded to perform blessings for couples who act out their same sex attraction? How long will it be before faithful priests will be commanded to give Holy Communion to people he recognizes as being in objective mortal sin by their objective actions?
He actually suggested that we tell our faithful priests that we will support them – he means with food, shelter, and money to survive, when they are hounded from their parishes.
Sounds radical but it’s coming. So get together with other like Catholics as yourself in your parish and tell your priest you’ve got his back.
Exactly. Yes, I agree – the fact that Bergoglio has been ordained by the novus ordo rites does give one pause for reflection, one does see a distinct lack of catholicity in this man in comparison with his (liberal) predecessors. I say this despite the fact that I don’t even hold that the rites per se are invalid ie I hold Bishop Schneider to be a true bishop etc, but there are other prelates – Card Marx etc – where you just wonder whether they are even priests of God.
There could be a simple explanation – in order for a sacrament to be valid, the prelate administering the sacrament must have the INTENTION of doing as the Church has always done, and with so many apostate clergy these days – it’s not beyond one’s imagination that bishops may be consecrating “priests” these days for the purpose of being “social workers”, rather than ministers of Christ who perpetuate the Sacrifice on Calvary of the God-man to the Eternal Father.
That’s a good point…
I hope people like Cardinal Burke, Bp Schneider et al will be digging into this great masterpiece sooner rather than later though.
“How long will it be before faithful priests will be commanded to give Holy Communion to people he recognizes as being in objective mortal sin by their objective actions?”
That’s 100% already happening – there are examples of faithful priests being persecuted and/or silenced for this very reason (eg a priest being forced/harassed to give communion to adulterers/sodomites/baby-in-the-womb murderers etc).
I think (at least I hope so) there will be a great separation of the wheat from the chaff once the Oktober sin-nod wraps up in 2015.
How much can the neo-catholics and the Voris camp take before saying, “enough is enough!”…?
The “crunch” is coming soon…
Dear Dumb Ox,,
In your first post above, you wrote:
“I feel myself all shaken up already! Ready to digest and embrace Francis’ new theology of “mercy”!”
Someone could quote you elsewhere, claim you meant that not as sarcasm, (as it appears to be here) but with genuine excitement, and insist you are a among the many who appreciate the new all-inclusive “Mercy” that disregards sin–then repeat that version whenever you went to post. . Would that make it true? Only as true as the claim that the Pope blasphemed when he attributed God does not exist–to what people say, before correcting them with the teaching about the Trinity.
What you are advocating regarding this Pope, is that defense of truth should be SELECTIVELY applied, and he doesn’t merit it in your opinion, due to his many other transgressions?. Or is it just that you’re willing to believe anything anyone wants to say about him, because you know he’s a modernist who is harming the Church? Truth still matters. So does your own integrity. There may be a mob-mentality adopted here by some trads, but it’s not God’s way for His people to behave.
Justice applies to every situation individually. God will take care of putting it all together in the end, and hopefully a council will give us some help, before that, if we are not first blessed with his conversion, or something else miraculous to make that unnecessary.
Please take a look at the facts in this case, and stop adding to the slander already out there. Do you really believe he was trying to TEACH that God does not exist, after starting off referring to “Some people..”? and ending with a lesson on the Blessed Trinity?
We researched what Bishop Sanborn wrote about this, because he was quoted on that earlier blog. He took his nonsense even farther than we imagined—deciding for everyone that the Pope does indeed believe God exists, and can’t be an atheist, [despite saying the opposite?]but a believer in Three separate gods!!!. You know how he tried to get his readers to believe THAT absurd conclusion?
He had to take the two phrases the Pope uttered—the first one in which he had set up the “people” to say ” god is spray” and “God does not exist; —and the second one in which he answered them with Church teaching—, and Bp Sanborn then JOINED THEM together BY INSERTING the conjuction -BUT- between them.
He really did that. –check his newsletter of Ocober, 2014–totally distorting the meaning and very obviously to anyone with eyes to see it. So NOWit conveniently reads:
God does not exist BUT there are The Father, Son..etc. –implying it was the definition of God that he was attacking, as ONE WOW!.
All THAT, So Bp.Sanborn could then claim Bergoglio rejects the Unity in essence of the Trinity.
For crying out loud, how ridiculous does this man have to get before you admit it?
What Bp. Sanborn did there is unconscionable. .
He even proved how far he was willing to go to mislead people, by pointing out that it wasn’t the first time the Pope used the phrase “god-spray” (with Bp. Sanborn claiming it is the Pope’s word for God) –and quoting the Pope from the prior year.
-[-You can check the quotes yourself –if you care about truth]
The earlier quote also had OTHER PEOPLE saying THEY think of god as spray. And again it had the Pope corrected them in his homily. THAT should have had the good Bishop retracting like mad. But instead he OMITTED the line about the people, completely–only repeating the godspray part that followed it–claiming it proved he was right!. How deceitful can he get? He also omitted the line which followed that, in which the Pope said the Trinity is Church teaching.
— Bp Sanborn ALSO failed to point out (see for yourself, again) that , that the “peoples'” concept of godspray was given a small g and the Popes answers about God–the Trinity had an upper case G in both quotes a year apart. Further demonstrating they were not as Sanborn tried to portray them–as the Pope’s concepts of God.
No heresy NO blasphemy. No Polytheism either. . Just a whole bunch of contrivances and lies being passed around as truth by a Bishop no less and again here, by you— to pollute the REAL evidence against this Pope. –Which there is PLENTY of –without trying to pullute it with THAT garbage.
Have we ever seen any evidence of POLY theism or Spray -ism from the Pope’s words in any other contexts? No.
But there are plenty of quotes showing poor Bp. Sanborn is in grave trouble here: The Catholic Herald headlines of the day proclaimed:
“Pope Francis warns faithful against ‘god spray’
“Pope Francis says Christians believe in God ‘who is Father, who is Son, who is Holy Spirit’, not a misty presence no one quite understands.”
They got it right.. But Bp. Sanborn labeled the POPE as “STUPID”
How stupid is it to see the same teaching method applied in two almost identical quotes, and miss the point entirely while the press ad the people present had no problem?
Here are some of this Pope’s own descriptions of the Trinity
All but the last were fully available at the time Sanborn wrote his slanderous newsletter.
My 28, 2013: Pope Francis explained “the Holy Trinity is not the product of human reasoning, but THE FACE WITH WHICH GOD HAS REVEALED HIMSELF, walking with humanity.”
Ap 2, 2014: “Wednesday, April 2, 2014 general audience St Peter’s Square.
“When a man and a woman celebrate the sacrament of marriage, God…is ‘mirrored’ in them,.. marks them with His features and the indelible character of His love.” “Even GOD IS A COMMUNION OF THE THREE PERSONS OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO LIVE FOREVER AND FOREVER IN PERFECT UNITY. ” And this is the mystery of marriage: God makes one existence of the two spouses – the Bible says ‘one flesh’ – IN THE IMAGE OF HIS LOVE in a communion which draws its origin and its strength from God.” …”THE TRIUNE GOD CREATED US..IN HIS IMAGE….
Jn 15, 2014: (ZENIT.org) TRINITY SUNDAY (St. Peter’s Square) Today we celebrate the solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, which presents for our contemplation and ADORATION OF THE DIVINE LIFE OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT: A LIFE OF COMMUNION AND PERFECT LOVE–ORIGIN AND GOAL OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE and every creature, God.
“Every Sunday we go to Mass, we celebrate the Eucharist together, and THE EUCHARIST IS LIKE THE BURNING BUSH, IN WHICH THE TRINITY HUMBLY DWELLS AND COMMUNICATES ITSELF, this is why the Church has placed the feast of the Body of the Lord after that of the Trinity.”
My 31, 2015 (CNA/EWTN News).- IN THE REVELATION OF THE HOLY TRINITY, GOD SHOWS THE CHURCH HIS SELFLESS LOVE AND UNITY, that we are called to foster in our own communities, Pope Francis said in his Sunday Angelus address.
“The Trinity is A COMMUNION OF DIVINE PERSONS WHO ARE ONE WITH THE OTHER,ONE FOR THE OTHER,ONE IN THE OTHER; THIS COMMUNION IS THE LIFE OF GOD, THE MYSTERY OF THE LOVE OF THE LIVING GOD. ….”it was Jesus himself who revealed the Trinity to us when he spoke of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and when he referred to himself as the Son of God.”
So why isn’t Sanborn scrambling to remove that newletter from his site, and to publish a major retraction and apology to the Pope?–as should you should be doing?
Please go check these facts, so we can get back to denouncing the bad stuff this Pope does, instead of advertising the fact that sometimes he teaches like a Catholic. It’s not good for the overall warning we wish to continue to sound for the sake of those who may be misled. But if you keep repeating the lies, we will have to keep refuting them with truth. We cant imagine why anyone would trust this Bp. Sanborn’s opinions, after seeing what he pulled here.
Dear Barbara, We have been abandoned to the wolves by our bishops and priests. How much longer before Cardinal Burke or Bishop Schneider or another that appears to subscribe the whole Deposit of Faith and morals, wait to speak out publicly against the pertinacious manifest heresy of the Pope? More and more and ever greater damage is being done to souls. Lord, help us!!!
Dear In Hoc,
Not likely without a miracle.
Bp. Schneider just finished an interview in French this week in which he said:
Regarding Francis culpability in the Synod fiasco……. in answer to the question
What can be his responsibility?
–His responsibility, it must be to God. He has his conscience. In the Church there is a principle: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. The first see can be judged by no one. It is this which I must follow. Perhaps after his pontificate there could be judgments about his behavior. But today he is our pope, the Vicar of Christ, and just like each one of us, he must one day render accounts to God, including about this synod, according to his conscience.
You can pretty-much add a ditto to that for C. Burke, judging from his last few interviews.
The Synod could change all that, IOHO, depending on how far things get.
Yes, Barbara, and it could never have got so far and so bad without the infiltration, corruption of, and collusion by, the Church: “Stop obsessing”, “stop screaming” aboiut abortion, euthanasia, all other legalised murder, sodomy, contraception, adultery, fornication, divorce, etc. Switch off your moral and all reason and accept and submit to the tyranny by way of “environmental protection”, “climate change”, “equality”, etc., as per the new “Magisterium”.
As In Hoc has identified, your second apocalyptic occurrence is already well established, now mainstreamed under “Pope Francis” – the systematic commission of sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament by, as a matter of policy (from bishops down) to give Our Lord to those in obstinate and manifest grave sin, e.g., those who publicly campaign for and legalise intrinsic evils of abortion, euthanasia and publicly-protected sodomitical relationships, people who constantly and publicly fight against fundamental truths of Faith and morality. Look what happened Fr Guarnizo when he did his duty to prevent sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament and mortal sin by himself and potential recipient of Blessed Sacrament. Lord, save us! Come soon! Purify us.
Dear Dumb Ox,
p.s. In the prayer you cited in Sarajevo, the Pope is repeating the false ecumenical (post Conciliar) idea that Jews, and Muslims believe in and pray to the same Triune God ALL real Catholics do– [without the awareness they will later have of that fact] It’s why we find it so nauseating and harmful. It’s complete nonsense- as every practicing Jew and Moslem will readily tell anyone that they reject the idea of God even having an “associate” –and that saying Jesus is God, is blasphemy according to their beliefs. (Though we’ve seen their reps ignore it in ecumenical services) Nostra Aetate and modernism are still doing their damage. Both need to be ousted, and those who buy into this false ecumenism need Catholic re-hab–of the kind the Consecration of Russia is likely to initiate.
In comments here that exhibit detraction, aren’t we dealing with “libel” rather than “slander?”
In my question above, to be more more precise, I should have said used the word “calumny” rather than “detraction.” Sorry about that!
After thinking about my correction to my earlier reply, I realized libel or slander could consist of calumny and/or detraction. The main point still being that we’re dealing here in the comments section with libel rather than slander.
Pope Francis sees the Church the exact same way that he sees civil society.
There is the power class: priests/ bourgeoisie/ideologues/fundamentalists/traditionalists; and there is the lower class of lay people workers/peasants/stinky sheep. Because he is fundamentally a socialist/Marxist, he has a natural antipathy for the ruling class, and believes they must be eliminated, or at least neutralized. The very fact that the Church is a monarchy and has a strictly hierarchical structure is intolerable to him. Everything he says and does reveals his antipathy toward any distinctions in classes or ideologies. He is trying his hardest to promote the revolution that will bring about the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The buzz word for this is “pastoral care.” Correct or acceptable behavior is determined by whatever the majority does, or tolerates. The ultimate goal is the elimination of all classes and religions (or the neutralization of all) so that there can be One World Religion/Order.
You are both right above. I should have stressed my main point was to actually speak to faithful priests to let them know we are with them, and not with just talk.
Little shocked by your definition of the priesthood — seems very VCII/ N.O. protestant. Any evangelical/pentecostal, including Billy Graham goes about w/mission of “saving souls” – how many they have baptized etc. and most believe no other “rites” are necessary (all man and self focus, can forgive own sins, confect own symbolic supper).
You also seem to say (and indicate that Pius X would agree w/you) that principal reason priest offers mass is to sanctify himself: “Notice that no sense whatsoever is conveyed in Haerent Animo that priestly sanctity alone has an attractive power capable of drawing souls to Christ, much less forming them in His image.Rather, it is clear that Pope St. Pius X considers priestly sanctity as but a “first” necessary step that enables the priest to carry out the work of “securing souls for Christ” as he uses his God-given authority to impart His saving truth. Pope St. Pius X is at pains in Haerent Animo to urge his priests to make time to fortify themselves for ministry by way of, “prayer, meditation, spiritual reading, examination of conscience,” all unto the formation of “priestly virtues.” Not surprisingly, the saintly pope points to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the offering of which lies at the very heart of sacerdotal identity, as central to the priests’ striving.” [I believe Pius X is indicating it’s a priest’s duty to strive for holiness BECAUSE he is offering the holy mass — also if holiness has no power to attract souls to Christ and is but a first necessary step that enables the priest to carry out this work, what are the next necessary steps? My understanding is the priest confers grace by administering the sacraments and that it is grace that saves souls. Also that offering daily the holy sacrifice of the mass is the priest’s chief “ministry” — i.e. I am one of those people who support priests to offer mass for me and my relatives living and dead and our intentions!]
If you look up on the internet a priest is “one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a MEDIATORY agent between humans and God”. “an ordained minister of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Church having the authority to perform certain rites and administer certain sacraments.” 1959 The New Century Dictionary: “One whose office it is to perform religious rites and ESPECIALLY TO MAKE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS.”
My Catholic Press 1951 Holy Bible contains encyclopedia: “Priest – One chosen from among men to represent men in their dealings with God. During the time of the patriarchs God had not as yet designated any certain men as priests. Sacrifices were offered by the heads of the families: by Noe (Gen 8:20), Abraham (Gen 22:13), Jacob (Gen 31:54; or by tribal chiefs: Melchisedech (Gen 14:18), Jethro (Ex 18:12). During the time of the Mosaic Law, God est a hierarchy of three ranks (2) The Priests who were the male descendants of Aaron…Among their duties were: to offer daily sacrifice at the altar of holocausts … (3) The High Priest who was the supreme head in religious matters…The high priest alone could offer the great sacrifice of expiation and he alone could enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple. …Jewish priesthood ceased in 70 AD w/the destruction of Jerusalem. During the time of the New Testament Christ is the high priest (Heb 5:1-10). He exercised his priesthood in the institution of the Eucharist (Matt 26:26-29; Luke 22:15-20 & 1 Cor 11:23-25; cf. Heb 9:22) and by His sacrificial death on the cross (Heb &:27; 9:12,14,25-26). By His words “Do this in remembrance of me” (cites) He ordained His Apostles priests, that is, He empowered them to offer the (holy) Sacrifice of the Mass; for every priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins (Heb 5:1). The Apostles, in turn, ordained men priests to carry out Christ’s injunction, “Do this in remembrance of me” and to perpetuate the application of the merits of Christ’s passion and death to all men (Acts 14:22; Tit 1:5). A priest, then, is a minister of Christ (1 Cor 4:1) representing Christ to the people and the people to God.”
Contrast w/ these articles on ‘priest’ and ‘priesthood’ at “New Advent” “catholic” encyclopedia:
LOL 🙂 🙂
Hope this won’t confuse things further for you, …
Catholic sources use the general term of slander for any defamation which involves “the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent.” Slander is a lesion of our neighbor’s right to his reputation, and should be confesses so that the extent and method of reparation may be settled.
How it is done is considered negligible as far as determining the sin. …” , however, .. whereas there are circumstances in which we may lawfully expose the misdeeds which another has actually committed, we are never allowed to blacken his name by charging him with what he has not done.”
Legally, Slander is defined generally also as a form of defamation, but is fine-toned down to that which is communicated orally or by gesture–whereas it is our understanding that libel is usually written material.
So you’re technically right –legally speaking about com boxes, but apparently it’s still generally acceptable to refer to it as slander or slanderous per the Church definition. Thanks for the input.
Or, if God allowed it, some might not be Confirmed. It’s very hard to see the Gifts of the Holy Ghost working in the modern Popes. Where’s Wisdom or Fear of the Lord or any Gift? The devil would definitely want an unconfirmed Pope.
Thank you, TWN.
With regard to Common Law, slander covers untruths uttered in a completed (temporary) way, damaging a reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people, whilst libel is in a permanent form such as published writing or sound or vision recording. Detraction isn’t included in the slander or libel of Common Law (and its successors), as the communications concerned are factually true.
First, I’d like to comment that these are supposed to be comments. Comments are
brief. Some people seem to see this as an opportunity to write their own essay. I would just like to ask that comments remain short and pithy. In that way they add much more to the discourse.
Second, this statement from the article is provocative and contradicts all of the other claims about Baptism. The idea that one Sacrament conveys more dignity than another is weird and wrong. If you want to argue that the Office of the Priesthood is more dignified than being a lay person, I could get behind that.
“First, one notes that our current pope imagines that the dignity derived from Holy Orders is no greater than that which is imparted at Baptism; something that even the most pertinacious of heretics have received.”
Apparently this year of Mercy is the first time in Church history a year has been declared that has no connection to an event in the life of Christ. http://eponymousflower.blogspot.ie/2015/06/year-of-mercy-adverse-reaction-from.html
Since no one seems about to do the honorable thing here and defend a completely unwarranted attack on a fellow contributor, I must take it upon myself to issue a stern rebuke.
This vicious, hateful, and utterly contemptible reply to Dumb-ox is out of control! Anyone with half a brain can see immediately that it is making a totally fabricated allegation which may have some connection to the truth on Mars but bears no relation whatever to the excellent contribution made here on planet Earth by said commenter.
Engaging others in your apparently hilarious (LOL) spree, you spread your mischief beyond your own conscience.
The bullying tactic of outnumbering any opposition by claiming that every opinion comes from more than one person has always been questionable to say the least but here is shown to be spurious unless we are dealing with a case of folie a deux in which both parties are affected by the same delusion.
Finding myself “on a roll” as one might say, I might as well continue. You repeatedly take over this blog as if it belonged to you instead of Louie, answering practically every point made by the unwary commenter, who has no idea that he/she will have to pass the “scrutiny by IF” test, on the understanding that we all wait with bated breath to find out what guidance our “dear gurus” have to give us on each and every subject. Any sensible contributions by you are lost in a mountain of verbiage and self-promotion.
Since our role here seems to be administering fraternal correction to Jorge Bergoglio, it would seem unfair to let this situation pass without someone giving you the chance to do the right thing. The least you can do is to attempt a bit of honest humility and apologise unreservedly for your inexcusable rant.
Knowing that my occasional tiny contribution here will not be missed, I hereby “fall upon my sword” and make my exit thus removing any temptation on your part to do your usual “thing” of beating your opponents down with verbal clubs until they beg for mercy.
It is dishonest to talk about “the inverted priesthood of pope Frances” as if this were something unique to him and not something that has infected all who have anything to do w/N.O. JP2 was a “worker priest” long before VCII.
We’ve had a NY priest for 40 years who worked at UMD & served as weekend asst. just celebrated his 50th anniversary — only time ever seen in a collar:
His weekday uniform is khakis, a blue work shirt and suspenders. On Sundays he’ll wear black pants a white shirt w/out a tie and a black coat. Major claims to fame besides going along w/every innovation of VC2: (1) aversion to crucifix (cross w/Corpus on it) – he redecorated the church back in the 80s and replaced crucifix w/ “the plus sign” which when parishioners protested was foisted on us as the “symbol” of ‘our’ parish (see on bulletin, web page, etc. – he would replace but only w/Franciscan crucifix (which doesn’t have 3D corpus); (2) sitting in the pews in his civvies during Lenten “evening prayer” (which he promotes rather than mass–“rosary never did anything for me”) while parishioners (the old women on the liturgy committee who only attend when it’s their turn to light the incense or read) officiate; (3) sitting on his can on Feast of Corpus Christi while female “ministers” distribute “communion”. The joke is that he is known as “the conservative” priest of the parish. He once told my mother that he felt guilty because he could no longer kneel all the way to the floor to venerate the host. (in imitation of him most of the parishioners now bow rather than genuflect — though most do nothing!). They have another Dominican priest who teaches at St. Anselms who always has a water glass on the altar and now sits during consecration (he has a bad leg too!). My mother says mainly Episcopalians (and also gay marriage and abortion promoting “catholics” like Jim Rosapeppe – don’t miss his pic at the jubilee!) now attend there though Fr. Smarsh seems to think young people are attending. “We’re in an era of young people and young families, especially with the school,” said Smarsh, adding that the youth will keep the parish changing and growing for the next century.”
I also have a cousin who attended seminary in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia back in the 60s but left w/out being ordained. He had MSW career w/NYC and upon retirement decided he wanted to become a priest. A seminary friend who’d become a bishop in southern mainly protestant state agreed to ordain him. Always wears civvies. Just recently he was in DC to attend the ecumenical Holy Satan conferences and visited w/my family: some of my siblings and mother took him to HR where he attended mass and sat in the pew w/them in his civvies. Not sure what he thought of this privately but said nothing to them (his own mother is a feminist abortion proponent who “shocks” the ladies of his parish). I should mention that most of these family members “stopped believing” in confession 40 years ago (if they ever did believe in it) and those who may frequent the sacrament upon occasion never say anything to the others. And yet one of these non-believers, who does frequent (can’t say believing it’s a sacrament) communion every time attends mass (and passed on this same protestant notion of communion to her children), said to me about two years ago, “I guess we’re what you would call traditional Catholics.” See you at the football game.
Forgot to mention one thing, which I feel I almost should confess as a sin. I once attended Good Friday services at HR and when it came time to venerate at this “mass” presided over by Fr. Smarsh, I venerated this “plus sign” (it was the ONLY option given). I believe I bowed to it though I may have kissed it because I wanted to venerate My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on me!
Dear TWN, it is horrific. The vast majority of us, I would say, have to suffer such tribulation. I haven’t the words to describe the desolation at such egregious, public and constant defiant offence against Our Lord God, by bishops, priests, nuns and others in public positions. Lord, save us! Let us offer our suffering to thee, oh Lord, in reparation.
No sin there! Your intention was pure as the driven snow. You got all the grace you deserved, as though the Corpus were there.
Can’t say the same for going along w/communion in the hand to not be different (also not covering my head) and telling my siblings that the Church was doing it because it was a health issue not to be disrespectful to Jesus Christ — just because I didn’t want to be different even though my father never took communion in the hand but always on the tongue (may he rest in peace).
For the record other efforts to stop the faithful focusing on the Mass as a Holy Sacrifice and accustoming us to married “lay” leaders:
(1) the priests at least Archdiocese of Washington DC ceasing to lead the stations of the cross and follow w/Benediction (at Holy Redeemer Church College Park since Fr. Ron Jamison, Wuerl & McCarrick’s rector of St. Matthews Cathedral (mother church of the diocese) only priest who signed petition support sodomite marriage in DC
and also presider over Boy Scout sex abuse scandal at Holy Redeemer (his newspaper remark (p22) — “his only contact w/Rankin was when Rankin stopped at the rectory each week to get a key to unlock the hall where the troop met” (i.e. sodomite clever gave him the keys to the kingdom (the old church)) didn’t see that scandal mentioned in gazette article and won’t see it in the “history” of Holy Redeemer College Park either and yet the abuse only surfaced (began?) when Jameson became pastor.http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/548516/david-macdonald-rankin.pdf
After HR Jameson was in limbo for a few years (rumor was he was removed because of parishioner complaints to the bishop for flooding the parish w/outside “district 5″ parishioners but in hindsight seems more like (credible) accusation of pedophilia is what got him removed (and perhaps treated at the St. Luke institute) before he resurfaced at St. Matthews as rector. [you can see his bio at St. Matthews cathedral web site] There were rumors one Palm Sunday during his tenure that a woman was going to take the part of Jesus (and remember this was in the 1980s) but didn’t happen at the mass I attended.
2) Unless a benediction has been held since Nov 2012 — there has been no benediction at Holy Redeemer College Park since 1984 when Fr. Donald Kelly died–and LAY people lead the stations of the cross (Fr. Wilkinson, “pastor” 2006-12 told me he visited the sick on Friday nights). At St. Hughs of Grenoble. Greenbelt, MD, a (married)* deacon began leading the stations after Fr. Tappe took over the parish. He is the ADW director of formation of the “permanent” (i.e. married) diaconate [until of course frankenstein buries him as a bishop!] and is also listed as the “assistant chaplain” of the St. Hugh Council Knights of Columbus:
*”and a son, Desider L. (Marlene) Vikor, Ph.D. of Greenbelt,”
Needless to say no benediction at Desi’s “Stations” though there is (supposably) ‘adoration’ (haha). [Priests bless, forgive sins & sacrifice.]
(3) The Notre Dame educated Fr. Smarsh is also famous for inviting us to laugh at the apostles, especially St. Peter, in his sermons and pointing out how they just didn’t “get it (Jesus Christ) ”, basically because they uneducated fishermen. Of course, “we” were so much more educated that we didn’t realize our priest was teaching us to have a great contempt for the apostles, saints, and the holy Word of God, while having a very high opinion of ourselves. Like all the priests, he was constantly telling us how good we were while never ever mentioning the Blessed Virgin Mary or any saint or even holding up Jesus Christ as a role model to imitate.