Devolved Authority for Diabolical Division

Apostolic wk pd Another good article from Fr Gary Dickson of Catholic Collar and Tie.

Following the Pope’s statement about his intention to decentralise authority from Rome to the Episcopal Conferences, many faithful Catholics see a dangerous weakening of the entire Church.

When I trained in counselling the tutors would ask us to assess one another in role play (and later in real sharing between ourselves) so that we could tell the ‘counsellor’ where they were good or bad in their use of skills and theory. Taking the non-judgemental ideology seriously I would describe the ‘counsellors’ interventions as ‘helpful’ or ‘unhelpful’ rather than ‘good’ and ‘bad’. I apply this to my comments on Pope Francis too, since we cannot read his soul and cannot know his motivation; we can only judge his actions as good/helpful or otherwise -and one has to say they are ‘otherwise’. In fact the idea of devolved authority is downright damaging to the unity of the Church and to the integrity of Doctrine, and as such can be pleasing only to the devil, Freemasons, Communists and ‘c’atholics who have lost their faith in Divine Revelation and the Church and wish to see the Church become a house divided, which cannot stand (Mk.3v25).

The way Our Lord determined to preserve the unity of the Church was through the Petrine Ministry; the Rock (Matt.16v18) who was to confirm the brethren in the Faith (Lk.22v32) as their supreme shepherd (Jn.15v15-17), so when Francis speaks of decentralising authority he cannot complain if he is described as doing the enemy’s work. Devolution to national Churches is not however, a new thing; it began many decades ago and we were softened up for it by the abandoning of Latin as the universal language in favour of diverse national languages. Truly, IMHO, the loss of Latin was the writing on the door to disunity. Today, Francis is trying to open that door. Let us pray that the Holy Ghost, working through orthodox Bishops, priests and laity will enlighten him and remind him that he does not own the house of God; that he is merely its caretaker, and that his responsibility is to defend the holy edifice, not hand it over to the enemy.

Make no mistake about it, devolution will destroy the Church. Not only will Truth be abandoned in favour of ‘local circumstances’ (localised relativism of areas or groups of persons such as adulterers, active homosexuals and paedophiles) but even practical day to day unity will be broken as English, American, Australian and the rest of the Anglophone world determine their own translation (paraphrases) of the Roman liturgy -if they agree to use it at all.

Truly, the idea of devolving authority to Episcopal Conferences is pure Protestantism, even when the idea comes from Rome herself.

[Best Comment from ‘Torch of the Faith’]:

Yes – this is indeed Protestantism!

In fact, as a vile attack on the Four Marks of the Church, it even whiffs of freemasonry.

Those Four Marks of the Church – One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic – were such a blessing to my parents and I (Alan) when we discovered them in the Catholic Church. This has been the case for countless souls who were guided by Grace onto the Barque of Peter.

In our Protestant days, we used to lament the fact that every parish – heck, every pew – had disparate beliefs regarding the nature of the Church, Scripture, Baptism, Priesthood and the Eucharist. As such, there was no real unity.

The notion that unity is somehow more important than truth – or even attainable without truth – is truly diabolical. It is an insult to the Most Blessed Trinity as well as to one’s basic intelligence.

These are perilous times indeed. May Our Blessed Lord and Our Lady keep us all safe. We have found reading the prophecies at Akita, Fatima, La Salette and Quito to be revealing in these times. So too, the private revelations to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

Thank you Father, for having the courage to speak out during this dark storm of Apostasy. It is a great encouragement to lay people everywhere to see such lights shining, like storm lanterns, in the darkness.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Devolved Authority for Diabolical Division

  1. ginnyfree says:

    There is nothing, I repeat nothing, diabolical in this statement: ” In a synodal Church, as I have said, “it is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound ‘decentralization’”.25″ Where is the diabolical twist given this statement? I fail to see the Holy Father giving away his Papal Authority nor undermining future Popes as some have imagined. Fear mongering. Cut me a break. I’m getting tired of the deliberate misquotations and outright distortions meant to shatter the faith of the faithful in their Holy Father. For shame. Ready obedience would be much more becoming, don’t you think? God bless. Ginnyfree.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Tom Fisher says:

    when Francis speaks of decentralising authority he cannot complain if he is described as doing the enemy’s work.

    Obviously he can complain about such a description, he can claim not to be doing the enemy’s work.

    IMHO, the loss of Latin was the writing on the door to disunity. Today, Francis is trying to open that door

    That is a confusion of imagery that hardly adds up to a thought.

    Make no mistake about it, devolution will destroy the Church

    So if there is some decentralising, the Church will be destroyed? Presumably it will be utterly impossible for any future pope to rectify the situation. The Church may prevail against the ‘gates of hell’, but not, apparently, against temporary decentralisation.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Michael says:

    To be fair to the Holy Father, in his speech he didn’t actually say what he wanted to devolve to local bishops’ conferences, etc – whilst we can make assumptions about what he might be intending here, he didn’t actually say that such devolution had anything to do with doctrine. Furthermore, he also said this:

    Finally, the synodal process culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, who is called upon to pronounce as “pastor and teacher of all Christians,” not based on his personal convictions but as a supreme witness of totius fides Ecclesiae (the faith of the whole Church), of the guarantor of obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ and to the Tradition of the Church.

    The fact that the Synod always acts cum Petro et sub Petro – therefore not only cum Petro, but also sub Petro – this is not a restriction of freedom, but a guarantee of unity. In fact the Pope, by the will of the Lord, is “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops as much as of the multitude of the faithful.” To this is connected the concept of ierarchica communio (hierarchical communio) used by Vatican II: the Bishops being united with the Bishop of Rome by the bond of episcopal communion (cum Petro) and at the same time hierarchically subjected to him as head of the college (sub Petro).

    which is a fairly strong defence of the papal primacy. I still find it hard to see how the dots join up in his thinking about all this, but we certainly can’t assume too much.

    More worrying (IMO) is that he seems to view the sensus fidei as some kind of survey of what everyone professing to be a Catholic happens to believe (or at least, that is the impression I get from the speech). It cannot be emphasised enough that this principle invokes the sense of the faithful – i.e.; those who have remained steadfast to the Faith and allowed it to shape the way they live, not the other way around. I really hope that I am wrong, but this recent speech gives the impression that sensus fidei is being interpreted in a very strange fashion, contrary to its established understanding.


  4. Brother Burrito says:

    Devolution of authority is a key corollary of the social doctrine of subsidiarity, surely. This is all Francis is saying. He also intimates that the relationship of the rulers and the ruled is a two way street, or it is no relationship at all. In the Christian world-view, those with the most power are the servants of those with the least. Listening with Christ’s ears is more important than spouting directives and flexing muscles, for both sides.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. TerryC says:

    It has been promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church of Christ. Nowhere has it been promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against any particular national or linguistic Church, as can be seen in the Protestant movement. Nowhere has it been promised that the Churches of Europe or the United States or Argentina will prevail against Hell if they start changing doctrine or pastoral practices in a way that seems to change doctrine.
    It has taken 2000 years for the Church to go from a few dozen members to 1.2 billion. If it were to go back to 146 million because the other 1.08 billion went into apostasy I feel quite certain it will eventually get back to 1.2 billion, not that that will do the souls of the 1.08 billion any good.
    Subsidiarity only works if the individuals and organizations at the lower levels remain true to the doctrine as revealed by the Magisterium. The vicar of Christ is not suppose to listen to the protests of Satan, from whatever level they come. He best serves by preaching truth. As Augustine said (in the age before anaesthesia) The surgeon does not stop cutting just because the patient begs him to stop. The surgeon’s goal is to save a life. The patient thinks only of the present pain. The Christian servant leader’s goal is to save a soul. The sinner thinks only of the way being called to repent of his sins makes him feel. HE would rather be justified in his sin than repent of them.


  6. According to the website “Voice of the Family” (, in a major address last Saturday, October 17, the Pope said that “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.”

    I think the key phrase is “including genuine doctrinal authority.” I hope I am misquoting or misinterpreting the Pope’s words here, but they seem to mean that any given episcopal conference will have the authority to determine doctrine within the country for which it is responsible.

    That seems to mean – and again I sincerely hope I’m wrong about this – that a divorced and civilly remarried couple, living in adultery, could receive Communion in Germany, for example, because the German episcopal conference has “genuine doctrinal authority” to allow them to do so. However, across the border in Poland, where the bishops’ conference adheres to the Magisterium, if the same couple receives Communion, they will have committed sacrilege and a grave mortal sin.

    Such a possible situation is so absurd, and so destructive of the teachings and the universality of the Catholic Church, that the whole idea of it is sheer nonsense.

    Isn’t it?


  7. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Michael. I think their panic buttons got mashed by this: ” In a synodal Church, as I have said, “it is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound ‘decentralization’”.25″ It is the 18th paragraph of the Holy Father’s address at the 50th anniversary of the Synod and it was also said by him in Evangelii Gaudium like this: “Countless issues involving evangelization today might be discussed here, but I have chosen not to explore these many questions which call for further reflection and study. Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.” They saw the word decentralization and ran with it. But if you read what the Pope Francis has said in those sentences, you will see clearly he is saying that he isn’t going to be doing anything about most of what has been brought to the Synod at these past two sessions. He is simply stating an age old truth about the going to the Pope for an answer – most folks don’t get one. He is correct to restate that although the Holy Father has the final say on everything and all that is said must include his approval, etc. it doesn’t mean he must say something final about all that has been brought to the fore at the Synod. Bravo! He’s telling you that he is going to do nothing about all the tough stuff that got brought to the Synod for all the listening of everyone involved! Ta da! All over, now go home and think about all you heard. If you expected him to make some sort of definitive statement about the hot button issues brought up at the Synod, then forget it! He is simply saying they have all got the ability to handle all this stuff at home. Kinda like the disappointment that Dorothy, the Tinman, Lion, Toto and Scarecrow felt once the curtain was pulled back and they met the Wizard of Oz face to face and he told them they had their answers all along and he couldn’t give them what they came hoping to get from him, the Wizard! Only in this case, some aren’t happy that they aren’t getting what they came to Oz for, so their making it up and running with it! They’ll have their own happy ending devoid of a few facts, but as has been said, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Well, at least until the rest of us catch on to the real story. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  8. johnhenrycn says:

    A particularly good comment by Terry. I especially liked the Augustinian surgeon analogy.


  9. ginnyfree says:

    No, Robert, it isn’t. For two reasons. Pope Francis’ own admission: “has not yet been sufficiently elaborated,” which is the second part of the two part sentence meaning if there is any actual authority they can have, it hasn’t been elaborated upon at this point sufficiently. Meaning it isn’t clear enough to make any determination as of yet. Second reason: it is not within the scope of the Holy Father to give any more authority to any Bishop than they already have. Their role as Bishops has already been written by the hand of God and it will not, nor cannot change even at the whim of the Pope! What can and does change is their jurisdiction and this is already a fluid thing. Dioceses change thru the years in size and number, some get split, some get absorbed into others. What he may be alluding to is a “discovery” of added jurisdictional authority that has not yet been utilized in the full. There on the shelf where the dust grows on the Canon Law books there may already be answers that have yet to be found. The Canonists know them, but the individual Bishops may not and this is no small underestimation at this age in our Church. There are many who don’t know what they are supposed to, even Bishops. So, they have to look it up themselves instead of asking the Pope to figure it all out for them. Or they can ask their Canonists and rely on them for their clarity.
    One other thing Robert, most of what has been passing for fact among certain reporters and media personages is as you’ve noticed, nonsense. It makes fools of those who rely on the press to tell them what the Church teaches and decrees about any and all things. If they knew their Catechism, they would already know that the Pope cannot give any new authority to any Bishop nor can he give them his authority. Sort of a no-brainer. Hope this helps. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  10. kathleen says:

    Hi Ginnyfree!
    I tried (honestly I did) to read the Holy Father’s speech in the same positive way you have, but I’m afraid I just can’t help seeing too many ambiguous meanings that could be squeezed by the liberals (and all those with their own ‘agenda’) into that “decentralization” the Pope wishes to place instead on local Bishops, to allay all my own fears… and, with one quick look around the Catholic web, that of very many other traditional Catholics.

    As Terry @ 14:54 has very wisely pointed out: “Subsidiarity only works if the individuals and organizations at the lower levels remain true to the doctrine as revealed by the Magisterium.”

    Besides, it’s not as though this is the first time Pope Francis has made a statement that either says ‘black’ and ‘white’ at the same time, or else could have more than one interpretation, depending on how his words are understood. (We’re getting kind of used to this sort of thing by now, sorry to say! 😉 )

    Jo Shaw (LMS Chairman) had an excellent article out yesterday, entitled “If the good guys win at the Synod”. He insightfully shows up, via some sincere laments of three recent Popes on the post-V2 disasters and comparing the Synod to the Council, how no matter how much Catholic Doctrine is adamantly stated and preserved, the Church’s enemies will jump on any slightly unclear clause or report in the final draft to implement their heterodox aims. IOW, they will refuse to admit defeat!

    “If the good guys win at the Synod, the liberals will still win. If the good guys clearly and publicly lose, then the results will immediate and catastrophic. I expect, however, that some formula will be found to maintain a consensus, a formula which could be seen as a victory for the conservatives, at least by comparison with the demands of some of the liberals. The point is, this will still be a victory for the liberals. They will take the concessions made to them, they will act as if they won twice as much, and they will be back for more.

    I don’t believe in an inevitable victory for the liberal side of the debate in the long term – quite the contrary – but the Synod, like Vatican II, has brought together a balance of forces which is clearly not going to conclude with a triumphant reassertion of the traditional view. Things are going to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.”


  11. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Kathleen. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. We’re talking God and His Church, right? The Good News is that the good guys always win. And those of us on the side of Christ have no fear for nothing other than victory that is Christ’s. Where o death is thy sting?
    What I honestly think will happen is that some will return to their dioceses and parishes and just like after the Second Vatican Council, they will behave as if they won and that their agenda was approved and will simply work to further it whether that is for gay weddings or Communion for those in adultery. They will act as if whatever they want is now the law of the land and with the Holy Father’s approval. They’ve sown enough seeds of doubt about through their manipulation of the press to make it appear as if their agendas were actually discussed in the Synod, when in fact, they weren’t but were only “discussed” in the press. Then having made it seem as if they talked to the Holy Father about say, gay weddings in Catholic places, they will come home and act as if the Holy Father gave his approval to whatever they determine in their local places and how they should resolve their own issues! But the truth is he hasn’t approved of anything at all except his own revisions to the Canon Laws regarding expediency of process, etc. that we saw earlier. Those who wished that their causes got approved will act as if they were for as long as they can. This is simply a repeat of the now notorious “spirit of Vatican 2” that took its toll on all of us as you well know. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  12. johnhenrycn says:

    This is a link to a brief article + YouTube posted today by Damian Thompson on The Spectator website. “Is this the future Pope Francis casually passing Holy Communion into a crowd?” he asks.

    It’s a 30 minute video, but DT suggests advancing to the 8 minute mark for the relevant bit.


  13. ginnyfree says:

    Thanks for the link to the video. Doesn’t appear as if the integrity of the Blessed Sacrament was a very high priority in his priestly ministry on that day. Not uncommon in our land. Yeppers. And then there as Pope Alexander VI. Not that bad is any badder than bad, but it still ain’t good. He is still the Holy Father. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  14. dfxc says:

    “Is this the future Pope Francis casually passing Holy Communion into a crowd?”
    No. That appears to be Cardinal Bergoglio distributing the Eucharist to an overwhelming throng of the devout with all possible care. I’ve seen more “casual” Extraordinary Ministers at the 5pm on Saturday when there’s no ‘rush’ to deal with.
    If there’s anything remarkable in that video, it’s the size, rapt attention, and engagement of the crowd…


  15. Plain old Toad says:

    You naughty old spoilsport, dxfe.
    We see exactly what we want to see, don’t we? And we hear only that which we want to hear,
    Explains a quite a bit about visions, apparitions, prophecies, “voices” telling us to do all manner of wacky stuff, Satanic insinuations from The Bogey Man, and Things That Go Bump In The Night. All that – and a great deal more. (In my opinion)


  16. Plain old Toad says:

    If Toad has learned anything from his blissful sojourn with CP&S, it’s the almost miraculous fashion in which any single piece of information can be variously interpreted. […]

    [Moderator – that’s enough ramblings in relativism for one day thank you Toad.]


  17. Michael says:

    Ginny @ 19:56, October 22nd:

    Yes, I’m well aware that the word ‘decentralisation’ has caused a lot of bother, and as my previous comment was trying to point out, nowhere is there mentioned what is being decentralised or to what extent. The problem I think is a.) the timing – the Holy Father’s speech was given just at the same time that devolving authority on doctrinal issues was/is being discussed in the small groups of the Synod, and b.) as Kathleen writes above, this is another example of Pope Francis’ speeches lacking a little in clarity and pushing in two directions at once without bringing things to a resolution.

    Having said that, the ‘progressive’ elements in the Church will indeed find room for manoeuvre anywhere – in official documents, papal pronouncements, etc, etc. The thing that has made the big difference is the general atmosphere created during this pontificate – under John Paul and Benedict there was hardly any doubt about where the papacy stood, where the Church was going, what was allowable. Now, with the whole ‘hagan lio’ thing (which may well, once the dust has settled, bear fruit, in terms of the wheat being sorted from the chaff) it seems to many people that everything is up for grabs and it is open season on even sure doctrinal standards.

    I agree with your comment at 22:39 actually, insofar as whatever happens at the conclusion of the Synod, people will go back to their parishes acting just as they did before, and perhaps even claiming they have been given carte blanche to implement new procedures. However, when they do do this, there is still lacking a clarity of vision and purpose for the Church from the Holy See which would help to put the brakes on them a bit. For now anyway… We will see what happens post-Synod. My hope is still that all this ‘up in the air’ over the last couple of years is merely the pretext for exposing subversive factions in the Church and then giving them the slap-down! But we will just have to wait and see.


  18. dfxc says:

    “…lacking a little in clarity and pushing in two directions at once…”
    It’s starting to hit me that most of the complaints about Pope Francis could be summed up as, “I wish he would stop sounding so much like Jesus”


  19. ginnyfree says:

    Nice try DFXC, but I’m going to disagree with you on this. You’re seeing things that aren’t there. It is obvious there is a lack of due reverence on the part of both recipient and minister in this video. Remember we are all supposed to believe that the fullness of the Godhead is present in that little round host and our expressions of due reverence are fitting worship to Him. No, there is nothing edifying about the video. Really. Nice try though. You mean to be charitable, but the truth is what we are to speak in charity. The Blessed Sacrament IS being disregarded and passed along as if it were merely a symbol and a shared spiritual experience of community, etc. Actions speak much louder than words. The bell cannot be un-rung on this one. God bless. Ginnyfree.


  20. Plain old Toad says:

    “Nice try DFXC, but I’m going to disagree with you on this. You’re seeing things that aren’t there.”
    Yes, DFXC (or may I call you DF, for short?) You must listen to Gin-free. She will tell you what’s there to see, and what’s not.
    And she’s never wrong.
    Because God tells her what’s what. By way of “voices,” no doubt.
    Lots of them do.


  21. Michael says:

    It’s starting to hit me that most of the complaints about Pope Francis could be summed up as, “I wish he would stop sounding so much like Jesus”

    Hmm. Really? One could make some sort of case for his way of doing things being similar to the approach of Our Lord (who, admittedly, also had quite an unregimented approach to things), but I don’t see much of a similarity between the way He talked to people and that of Pope Francis. He was usually pretty clear in His utterances, according to my memory anyway.


  22. kathleen says:

    “…lacking a little in clarity and pushing in two directions at once…”

    Dear Ginny, these ^ were Michael’s words that dfxc was quoting… and in which I believe Michael was absolutely correct. In fact I said much the same thing too in my previous comment.

    dfxc, your loyalty to the Vicar of Christ is praiseworthy and something all Catholics should aim to acquire, together with the love and respect that is his due. However, Popes are still human beings, and all the ones in my living memory have shown sincere humility in the knowledge of their frailty, human failings and limitations, therefore pleading that the faithful pray daily for guidance from the Holy Spirit for them to be worthy vessels of their supreme calling.

    The confusion and lack of clarity in some of Pope Francis’s pronouncements is often not, IMHO, comparable to the straightforward words of Our Blessed Lord! This is in truth the problem, causing so much misinterpretation and confusion in the Church these days. I do not say this is intentional on his part – I don’t believe it is – but unfortunately you only have to look around you to see that his “pushing in two directions at once” (as Michael puts it) is very much part and parcel of this papacy so far. It might be an Argentinian thing perhaps, or a personality trait, or whatever, but the fact remains that two people with opposing viewpoints can interpret some of the Holy Father’s declarations in two totally contradictory ways. It’s crazy! This was never the case with St John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

    We hold our breath and wonder what the final outcome of the Synod’s report will be! Let’s pray hard for a favourable, lucid and solid document that holds firmly to all the Church’s timeless teachings.
    If not, bedlam will ensue!


  23. ginnyfree says:

    Ribbet Toad, ribbet. That’s what my voices said I should convey to you. Pray on them daily and you will find rest for your tadpoles.


  24. Plain old Toad says:

    You do well to listen to your voices, Gin.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s