More than a few eyebrows were raised last week when, in response to Francis’ statement alleging that the “great majority” of Catholic marriages are invalid, Fox News journalist Adam Shaw wrote:
Enough is enough, Pope Francis should resign
Shaw, who is a “politics reporter” for Fox, did an admirable job of bringing the matter into focus under a Catholic lens, writing:
The rule of thumb when the validity of sacraments, whether it be marriage, the Eucharist or the priesthood, is concerned, is to assume validity unless something clearly contradicts that. So just like a priest doubting his faith as he is ordained is still a priest, a bride with jitters is still validly married — God makes up for our frailties.
Garnering the most attention, however, was Shaw’s characterization of the (alleged) pontificate of Francis as one “marred by controversy from the beginning.”
“His papacy has been a litany of confusing statements for the faithful on the most sensitive and delicate topics,” Shaw wrote.
So much so, he said, “many well-meaning Catholics feel they no longer know where the Church stands on issues of faith.”
Indeed, this may be true for some.
I, however, tend to believe that the real problem with Francis isn’t so much that he causes confusion, but rather that he so often justifies the errors of those who know and yet reject what the Church teaches.
Be that as it may, the big takeaway from Shaw’s article for some Catholic commentators was that even Fox News now realizes that Francis has been an unmitigated disaster for the Church; something neo-conservative Catholic outlets can’t bring themselves to admit.
Of far more interest to me, however, is the degree to which this article testifies to the tremendous damage that has been done by Francis’ (alleged) predecessor, Benedict XVI.
I don’t know Adam Shaw, but all indications are that this is a young man who knows quite a bit about his Catholic faith. His writing suggests that he has a certain passion for the Church’s mission and a sincere concern for her stature in the eyes of the world.
This latest article on Francis, incidentally, isn’t Shaw’s first rodeo.
Back in December 2013, Shaw penned a piece for Fox News entitled Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us, wherein he predicted “Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church.”
As a result of this article, Shaw was relieved of his freelance position providing movie and gaming reviews for Catholic News Service; a decision presumably made by its homo-sympathizing former Director, Tony Spence.
In other words, it seems that on any number of levels Adam Shaw gets “Catholic,” and he is willing to pay a price to defend it.
As such, the conclusion to his latest article on Francis is noteworthy:
Once upon a time Catholics would have been stuck with a bad pope, but since Pope Emeritus Benedict opened the door for a pope resigning when he can no longer do his job, it is time for the faithful to look at Francis and ask — “is this man able to lead the Holy Catholic Church?”
At this point it is clear, Bergoglio has repeatedly proven himself unable to lead, and is doing incalculable damage to the Church that will take decades to heal.
Pope Francis should resign, and Catholics should demand it, so the Church can begin recovering from the havoc his ill-advised and arrogant papacy has wrought.
The first reaction one might have upon reading this is to shout out a “Hell yes!”
Remove the emotion from it, however, and one cannot help but lament the terribly negative impact Benedict’s attempt at “expanding” the Petrine ministry has had on the image of the papacy itself.
In his infamous presentation of 20 May 2016, Archbishop Georg Gänswein indicated that he, and presumably Benedict, are acutely aware of that impact, and yet he provided little in the way of evidence that either one of them is the least bit troubled by it:
To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.
Is it accurate to say that the image of the papacy been secularized as never before? Has it truly been made to look less sacred? Has it really been demythologized; brought down to earth and somehow made more credible in the minds of worldly modern thinkers?
If Adam Shaw’s comments are indicative of the way in which other reasonably well-formed Catholics now view the Office of Peter, the answer is clear:
The pope now appears to be little more than the CEO of a multinational corporation, beholden in some way to the demands of its shareholders; the same who will rightly call for his ouster should his job performance negatively impact the Catholic brand.
Yes, as Shaw said, Francis is most certainly doing incalculable damage to the Church that will take decades to repair, but let us not forget that the blasphemous Argentinian heretic in white would still be riding transit buses in Buenos Aires if not for the devastating blow that Benedict XVI delivered to the Church on 11 February 2013.
So, which man will history judge more harshly, Francis or Benedict?
Modernists like Francis have been around for a very long time. They’re a dime a dozen. For my money, therefore, it is the latter – the same who printed Bergoglio’s one-way ticket to Rome – who is most culpable.
In any case, the longer Benedict’s unprecedented assault on the Petrine Office goes unaddressed – and there is no indication that any among the bishops are willing to touch the matter – the more likely it is that the damage that he has wrought will take centuries to repair, if ever.
Excellent analysis, Louie, and kudos to Adam Shaw for his keen insight.
Along the same lines as your analysis of Pope Benedict’s decision to ‘resign’, Ann Barnhardt has written a piece which strongly questions the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s ‘resignation’ and asserts to her mind (Barnhardt’s) Francis is henceforth an antipope.
Barnhardt cites Benedict’s resignation was a ‘substantial error’ on Benedict’s part.:
“Canon 188
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.”
The entire piece may be found here:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/06/19/vocem-alienorum-the-voice-of-antipope-francis-bergoglio-is-the-voice-of-a-stranger/
Benedict is more culpable by far:
1) By staging his sham election and foisting Pope Francis on the Church.
2) By withholding the Third Secret from us and refusing to Consecrate Russia since 2005.
3) By sharing in every adventure of John Paul II’s Pontificate as head of the CDF.
4) By his modernist intrigues before and during the Second Vatican Council.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“The accusation of separation and of schism made against us because we refuse to participate in the protestantization of the Church is ridiculous! It is, however, deserved by those who foment that same protestantization. Among them are those who have for a long time fallen away from the Catholic Faith and yet, in common with all the heretics of history, work to try to make the Church become like them and conform to their ideas. We cannot understand how intelligent people can state that they “prefer to err with the Pope rather than to be with truth against the Pope.”
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry. Our consolation will be that we remain in the company of God and of all the martyrs who have given their lives to keep the Faith.”
Supposedly, Benedict resigned for health reasons. One would expect that his successor would be much younger and in good health. On the contrary, Bergoglio was already in his 70’s and had only one lung. Makes your head spin! Benedict appears to be in reasonably good health, especially when you compare it to the later years of the JP2 papacy. None of this makes sense, unless, of course, you are a modernist hell-bent on destroying the papacy (and the continuing destruction of the Catholic Church). It’s a Vatican 2 grand slam. Hold onto your hat, folks, they ain’t finished yet!
I don’t think that the restoration of the Catholic Church will take centuries. I think and hope that it will go pretty quickly once begun.
According to Our Blessed Mother, She’s got this one. Our Lady of Good Success spoke of the times that we are living in way back in the 1500s. Oh, and Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres chose to be an expiatory victim for our time. This means that she suffered greatly for us who live now and specifically for The Catholic Church in the end of the 20th century. I think about the God given tortures that this Venerable nun went through for us, and I am at least driven to pay a little attention to her story and to Our Lady of Good Success, who wishes to be known today by this title. So, though I don’t know the details about how Our Lady will clean this mess up, I really doubt it will take centuries. How can we help? She asked us to pray fervently so that God will more speedily send His Holy Prelate who will be with us during the restoration of The Church. Also, She said that we should cry bitter tears in the privacy of our hearts. So don’t feel bad if you’re already doing that. That’s what you’re supposed to be doing now. She knows you, and she’s with you. The following are words of Marian Horvat who wrote the only books which are English translations of the original transcripts of Our Lady of Good Success’ message for our times:
Finally, I should remark that Our Lady of Good Success also gave a message of great hope. She promised her intercession at the very moment when the evil will seem to be triumphant and when the ecclesiastical authority will abuse its power. This would mark, as Our Lady said, “the arrival of my hour, when, in a marvelous way, I will dethrone the proud and accursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss.” (5) These words harmonize perfectly with the message of hope Our Lady delivered to the three shepherd children at Fatima in 1917: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
SO, although it will be a great event, I don’t think it will take too long.
The biggest “sin” now is to acknowledge and speak of the reality of the Great Apostasy that we are drowning in. The “establishment” of the Church institutions and Media are quick to castigate those who refuse to admire the Naked Emperor’s fictional fine attire with regard to the evil swarming the Church and the World in every aspect, taking countless souls away from God. For example, in a recent local EWTN newsletter, such people were gently chided for being “distract[ed]”. Diabolical disorientation perfectly describes this studied refusal to acknowledge reality. Lord, have mercy.
This is true but we have a duty to fight for our souls and the souls of others. Nothing is so agonising as seeing so many souls turn their back on God and embrace Satan. It is terrifying to know we will have to answer to God at Final Judgment for what we have done or failed to do for those souls around us. I tremble at the thought. Lord, give me strength and the necessary graces.
It certainly was and is a substantial and substantive error. Resigning in the circumstances, those actual and asserted, is not within Catholic Tradition, in conformity with the Faith or God’s Law. It is inherently unjust – not least unjust to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Head of the Church.
Cortez, I think you are right on. 2016 is the year Satan has taken the gloves off. The push for every kind of homosexual rights inside and outside of the “Church” proves Satan knows his time is short.
You got it sister!
Bosco 49–Thank you for this link. Inspired writing. Puts all the pieces together. Bergoglio is a fraud who dances with the devil.
Dear Rush: This is a wonderful post. Bergoglio and his friends (such as Kissy Rodriguez and especially Kasper the Gay Ghost) are merely products of the corrupt, diabolical Vatican II “church” that was given to us by Ratzinger and his old friends Kung, de Lubac, Congar and so on. Of course, he threw those people under the bus as part of a false flag “hey, look at me, I’m traditional!” operation, presided over by the Jimmy Carter-esque John Paul II, but we all know where his true sympathies lie.
Unless we are debating which one will suffer greater in hell, assuming they both go there which is a very safe assumption at this point (read St Leonard of Port Maurice), then Im not sure trying to determine which one is more culpable is very important. If the question is being posed to convince the ratzinger-ists that he is actually a really lousy human being just as well as bergoglio is (as Im pretty sure the intention here is), then ratzinger is much more culpable as he has surely deceived many more people with his false traditionalism. There are many people as we speak, who I personally consider to be of good faith, who, because of the egregious sins of heresy of bergoglio, are now trying to explain away why another heretic…ratzinger…is still a pope. Craziness ensues in 2016.
Perhaps the Pope Benedict slipped back into the dugout to allow Satan up to bat, with bases loaded by the other past, modernist popes. The time is ripe.
This is the big error traditionalists are making today. They think that preserving the Catholic Church involves magically changing all the current heretics and apostates into faithful catholics as well as the millions who follow them. That isn’t going to happen. And for the prophecies to be fulfilled it doesn’t need to happen. Many are called and FEW are chosen. Those here at this site who are faithful, SSPX, FSSP, etc. ARE the Church. Some in what most think is the church will also be saved…but how few among the priests, bishops, cardinals? How many lost among those who consider themselves Catholic? Even Benedict preached that many are called but VERY few will be chosen for salvation in this era. By the way, Barnhardt’s article will cause her all kinds of grief–as she predicts. And I have some problems with her argument about the resignation not being valid (intrigue and intimidation are far more likely). But it’s a great post, long overdue. We moan about those in the hierarchy not speaking out about Bergoglio. How many bloggers will join Ann in support of his condemnation? I have long been wrestling with the invalid, antipope concept. But I have no doubt this man is not Catholic.
We now have traditional writers opining that maybe ratzinger is still the pope. This idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances under which ratzinger initially resigned, as they are making it out to be….because if it did these points would have been brought out forcefully 3 years ago when bergoglio took over, which of course they werent. No, people are going nuts NOW because bergoglio is out of control in his heresy and traditionalists are looking for any excuse that they can up with as to how this could be…..and that leads us to the hilarious idea that ratzinger was “forced to resign and that he was scared and he had no choice to do what he did because he feared for his life”….or some other such nonsense.
Ratzinger is doing FINE…he isnt worried about ANYTHING (the recent words of ganswein…if we were actually worried about him for whatever stupid reason..should set us straight). The protestant/heretical religion that he helped to found, and is still a huge supporter of, is simply being carried out by bergoglio; bergoglio is simply the logical conclusion to the ratzinger false-faith. Ratzinger is EVIL. I said this same thing many times on this blog….and its good to see many others seeing the same thing….but for anyone willfully ignorant enough to believe otherwise, do your homework….ratzinger is EVIL. No good man with a voice could ever stand by and let bergoglio say what he says as ratzinger does. They are ALL evil and they are all working towards the same goal. All these cardinals, bishops and priests….EVIL. You either need to get on board or get run over by the train…and the funny thing is, that if you know your faith, its very easy to see the train coming.
Cortez, this post was not directed at you directly of course but stated in general. My post is for all Catholics….Im sure many think Im nuts with my hardcore words but the writing on the wall is becoming clearer and clearer and it has actually been clear for many years now, and I would be negligent if I remained silent.
I would totally disagree on your FSSP proposition. They are vatican 2 heretics who know how to say the latin mass and nothing more. If they were sincere they would abandon the vatican 2 religion…and if they abandoned the vatican 2 religion they would abandon the FSSP.
I fundamentally disagree with the SSPX for a different reason, but they cant possibly be grouped in with the FSSP at this point.
Don’t apologize for speaking frankly. This is no time to be silent. I agree with you almost completely. It took a while for them to raise this generation lost in space that doesn’t know their faith. This was all very well orchestrated by each and every one of them and their minions. So who’s MORE culpable? It doesn’t matter. Every one of them had their perfect time and moment in this wicked grand plan born of the devil. But what would be the purpose of Pope Benedict moving over for Pope Francis? Is it that Pope Benedict just didn’t have the right personality to try to pull off the antics of Pope Francis or that he needed to remain the “good” cop in the background? Or was the time right for a heavy hitter to try for a grand slam? It really doesn’t matter. They’re all just a pieces of a twisted puzzle constructed to destroy God and drag as many souls to hell as possible. They are all guilty.
Respectfully, though, someone’s the Pope of this messy time. The great crisis is IN The Church, so someone’s got to be leading it. Yes, since Vatican 2 and leading up, there have been very evil men, but that’s why Our Blessed Mother is going to come crashing down. If these men weren’t all popes, tools of the devil or not, and this weren’t The Catholic Church than Our Lady of Good Success wouldn’t be even talking about it and it’s disasters of the 20th century. That’s what She’s talking about in the 1600s-The CATHOLIC CHURCH and it’s hierarchy. (ie.the popes, cardinals, bishops, priests). If it weren’t the Church, as messed up as it is, she wouldn’t even glance at it, let alone need to restore it. And you wouldn’t care either. Right? This heretical religion all is occuring within the confines of The Church. AKA: The crucifixion of the Church. We have no control in this matter. This is the time to step up, and accept suffering as individuals, because that’s all we got-every bit of our measly selves for God in our short lifetime which He owns. He only promises happiness in Heaven. So, see it clearly and straight on. It’s supposed to hurt to watch OUR CHURCH undergo this persecution. If we are going to take a stand for Truth in some way in our lives than we should expect different levels of pain, depending on what God desires for each of us individually. For some He asks more. Martyrdom isn’t always the way we imagine it to be. With respect.
On another note one of these guys or both are pope. Only God knows, and he’s sending His Mother to straighten things out.
Who is more culpable? The New Order “catholics” who sit in the pews and put anything in the collection basket. .. they are the most culpable! When these fake “churches” are empty, restoration could begin. They have allowed themselves to be blinded as they rely on their own holiness (real or perceived). Christ gave us His Church for our salvation. He did not suffer His horrendous passion and death so that we would all be “nice”.
Benedict and Francis will one day face Our Lord’s Justice….so will all of us. Did we contribute to this mess by blind obedience or did we stand up and fight? The battle lines are drawn. Neutral is not one of them!!
I don’t recall our Lord ever being so accusatory towards his sheep.
It seems, my2cents, that you are succumbing to a theology of “encounter”, of “where the people are at”.
Does your position reflect the love demanded by our Lord of St. Peter before His ascension?
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005:And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?.. this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”
To those who think Ratzinger was traditional, I have a bridge they may be interested in buying !!!!
“We charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us” (2 Thes. 3:6)
Furthermore, Louie’s message has been consistent: they that have delivered the rank and file Catholics to this current state of affairs, have the greater sin.
When those who attend N.O. “masses” say “enough is enough”, the door will be open to true restoration. I am not being accusatory regarding motive. Nor would I dare judge their hearts and souls. However, the fact remains that until these heretical churches close their doors, this crisis will not end. What do you think is the solution, Alarico? Was Our Lord accusatory toward the pharisees and the sanhedrin? Was He accusatory to those who slander the young? Was He accusatory toward Judas when He said it would be better if he had not been born? Regarding the love demanded by Our Lord by St. Peter, does Bergoglio manifest that love?
Neo Catholics are sheep without a Shepherd. That’s why the chastisement of bad shepherds is the worst one for the Church. God may have a special mercy for the Neos, in the same way He has given a special grace to the remnant, to keep the Faith.
Rushintuit—I believe my comment was misinterpreted (my fault–wrong wording). The neo-catholics who ignore heresy (knowingly or out of willful ignorance) are culpable, but are not MORE culpable than Francis, Benedict or any other evil Modernist clergy.. However, we cannot hold our breath waiting for the Shepherds to wake up. I still say the key to this crisis is for Neos to take drastic action by staying home and demanding that their parish churches become truly Catholic once again. Those who know something is wrong and keep quiet validate the errors of Vatican 2 and the horrors of this papacy. This does not mean that Traditionalists are off the hook. As you say, we all must pray for that special grace to keep the Faith.
The photo of these two amigos speaks a thousand words..seems to me that each time they are photographed together it’s like a mutual admiration society.
Who made Jorge Bergoglio a Bishop?
In any event, the putative pope is not vice deserving of that designation as it is far more likely than not that he is not even a nominal christian.
The other day (Rorate reports) in St John Lateran, Bergoglio said that Jesus liked to provoke and confuse the people but that is just the moral malignity of Jorge Bergoglio being projected onto Jesus in a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying his own personal perfidy.
It is as if Bergoglio is bellowing I am just like Jesus who also liked to provoke and confuse
Rather judging who is more guilty (I would say it is Vatican II all we are seeing is the natural consequences) should we ask if it is beyond reasonable doubt that Francis is an anti-Pope? No proper intention to resign on BXVI leads to invalid resignation, that leads to invalid conclave, which finally leads to an invalid election of Francis. Therefore he is an anti Pope.
I fear there may be an intellectually structural underpinning to Bergoglio’s method which goes beyond the common rationalizing of sin. Bergoglio’s approach seems to be the philosophical essence of modernism, the religious immanence of which Pope Pius X warned us. Or in other words, we may here be witnessing the ‘active Papacy’ (sic) at play as opposed to the ‘contemplative Papacy’ (sic): the former using Socratic dialogue or Hegelian dialectic to recreate Christ; the latter using the purely ratio or human logos to recreate His Wisdom. Either way misses the Eucharistic centre and adverts itself from the incarnational essence of the Church.
(Now I’m blowing hot air like the Vatican II theologians!)
Blaming “Vatican II” seems to me like a typical neokat copout excuse. It was just a Church document written on a piece a paper. It isn’t a person, CAN’T DO anything and CAN’T be “guilty” of heresy anymore than a gun can be guilty of murder. Having said that, 99.9% of the credit for the mess goes to the 27 disastrous years that Pope John Paul II was Pope. To me whether Pope Francis is anti-pope is an irrelevant question since he was basically the 27 year long invention/ creation of PJPII and common sense would place the blame on the one who created this monster not the monster itself. It also seems to me that the neokats, the ones that are no longer in denial anyway, have now decided to start using Pope Francis as a sort of scapegoat in an effort to advance even further VII and Pope John Paul II’s “Great”ness as if he would be oppossed to Pope Francis, which is a ridiculous assumption based on PJPII’s own record and the fact he was the one that appointed Pope Francis as Cardinal to begin along with most of the Cardinals that voted for him. Anyway, since PJPII worked 27 years to actually create this mess that Pope Francis seems to be getting all the “credit” for the bigger problem that needs to be answered is not if Pope Francis is a valid Pope or anti-pope but is Pope John Paul II a valid saint?
Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public. It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect. Jews, with their long experience of often deadly assaults, know full well the benefits of religious freedom. For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted. Such constraint, which can take multiple and insidious forms on the personal and social, cultural, administrative and political levels, is contrary to God’s will. It gives rise to political and religious exploitation, discrimination and violence leading to death. God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill.
ECCLESIA IN MEDIO ORIENTE
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE BENEDICT XVI
14 Sep 2012
“For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted.”
I suggest Benedict go read Islam 101 over at Jihad Watch.
There is no natural right to practise false, inherently evil religion. Conscience is a much abused term – its inviolability rests on it conforming itself to objective good, objective truth. Most people’s consciences are long dead but they invoke same in vain to assert a right to support evil.
Therefore, conscience is always subject to reason and conviction. However, the type and degree of conviction is debatable.
Amateur Brain Surgeon–My thoughts exactly! This is nothing new, It started at the VERY beginning. Remember St. Michael’s words to Lucifer: “WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD?” Bergoglio is not the Vicar of Christ. He is the Vicar of Christ’s enemies!
“He forbids all killing, even of those who kill.” Interesting…And ridiculous.
If you’re referring to the prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success, why would you doubt the Blessed Mother? She WILL dethrone Satan and trample him under her feet, and it shall be awesome!
…and un-Catholic.
Clearly, the papacy is simply a job, nothing more. Like the head of a government, the pope is merely the spokesman for the people. He is the one that travels the world, kissing babies, taking selfies, tweeting, having endless interviews and photo-ops, and like other government heads, keeps the people guessing as to what the agenda really is.