With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis

Written by The Remnant and Catholic Family News:

lutheran 800x500

In preparation for this year’s planned commemoration of the Protestant Revolt, Pope Francis prays with the Rev Jens-Martin Kruse in a Lutheran church

September 19, 2016
Feast of Saint Januarius in the Month of Our Lady of Sorrows

Your Holiness:
The following narrative, written in our desperation as lowly members of the laity, is what we must call an accusation concerning your pontificate, which has been a calamity for the Church in proportion to which it delights the powers of this world. The culminating event that impelled us to take this step was the revelation of your “confidential” letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires authorizing them, solely on the basis of your own views as expressed in Amoris Laetitia, to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.

You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per sewithout exception, the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bimillenial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation, the Code of Canon Law and all of Tradition.

You have already provoked a fracturing of the Church’s universal discipline, with some bishops maintaining it despite Amoris Laetitia while others, including those in Buenos Aires, are announcing a change based solely on the authority of your scandalous “apostolic exhortation.” Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Church.

Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you. Almost no one in the hierarchy stands in opposition to your reckless disregard of sound doctrine and practice, even though many murmur privately against your depredations. Thus, as it was during the Arian crisis, it falls to the laity to defend the Faith in the midst of a near-universal defection from duty on the part of the hierarchs.

Of course we are nothing in the scheme of things, and yet as baptized lay members of the Mystical Body we are endowed with the God-given right and the correlative duty, enshrined in Church law (cf. CIC can. 212), to communicate with you and with our fellow Catholics concerning the acute crisis your governance of the Church has provoked amidst an already chronic state of ecclesial crisis following the Second Vatican Council.

Private entreaties having proven utterly useless, as we note below, we have published this document to discharge our burden of conscience in the face of the grave harm you have inflicted, and threaten to inflict, upon souls and the ecclesial commonwealth, and to exhort our fellow Catholics to stand in principled opposition to your continuing abuse of the papal office, particularly where it concerns the Church’s infallible teaching against adultery and profanation of the Holy Eucharist.

In making the decision to publish this document we were guided by the teaching of the Angelic Doctor on a matter of natural justice in the Church:

It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” [Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 33, Art 4]

We have been guided as well by the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, regarding licit resistance to a wayward Roman Pontiff:

Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will… [De Controversiis on the Roman Pontiff, Bk. 2, Ch. 29].

Catholics the world over, and not just “traditionalists,” are convinced that the situation Bellarmine envisioned hypothetically is today a reality. That conviction is the motive for this document.

May God be the judge of the rectitude of our intentions.

Christopher A. Ferrara
Lead Columnist, The Remnant

Michael J. Matt
Editor, The Remnant

John Vennari
Editor, Catholic Family News


LIBER OF ACCUSATION 

By the grace of God and the law of the Church, a complaint against Francis, Roman Pontiff, on account of danger to the Faith and grave harm to souls and the common good of the Holy Catholic Church.


What Sort of Humility Is This?

On the night of your election, speaking from the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica, you declared: “the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome.” Even though the crowd before you consisted of people from around the world, members of the Church universal, you expressed thanks only “for the welcome that has come from the diocesan community of Rome.” You also expressed the hope that “this journey of the Church that we begin today” would be “fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city.” You asked the faithful present in the Saint Peter’s Square to pray, not for the Pope, but “for their Bishop” and you said that the next day you would “go to pray the Madonna, that she may protect Rome.”

Your strange remarks on that historic occasion began with the banal exclamation “Brothers and sisters, good evening” and ended with an equally banal intention: “Good night and sleep well!” Not once during the first address did you refer to yourself as Pope or make any reference to the supreme dignity of the office to which you had been elected: that of the Vicar of Christ, whose divine commission is to teach, govern and sanctify the Church universal and lead her mission to make disciples of all nations.

Almost from the moment of your election there began a kind of endless public relations campaign whose theme is your singular humility among the Popes, a simple “Bishop of Rome” in contrast to the supposed monarchical pretensions of your predecessors and their elaborate vestments and red shoes, which you shunned. You gave early indications of a radical decentralization of papal authority in favor of a “synodal Church” taking its example from the Orthodox view of “the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality.” The exultant mass media immediately hailed “the Francis revolution.”

Yet this ostentatious display of humility has been accompanied by an abuse of the power of the papal office without precedent in the history of the Church. Over the past three-and-a-half years you have incessantly promoted your own opinions and desires without the least regard for the teaching of your predecessors, the bimillenial traditions of the Church, or the immense scandals you have caused. On innumerable occasions you have shocked and confused the faithful and delighted the Church’s enemies with heterodox and even nonsensical statements, while heaping insult after insult upon observant Catholics, whom you continually deride as latter-day Pharisees and “rigorists.” Your personal comportment has often descended to acts of crowd-pleasing buffoonery.

You have consistently ignored the salutary admonition of your immediate predecessor, who resigned the papacy under mysterious circumstances eight years after having asked the bishops assembled before him at the beginning of his pontificate to “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” To quote your predecessor in his first homily as Pope:

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideasbut rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.


A Selective Meddling in Politics, Always Politically Correct

Throughout your tenure as “Bishop of Rome” you have shown scant regard for the limitations of papal authority and competence. You have meddled in political affairs such as immigration policy, penal law, the environment, restoring diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba (while ignoring the plight of Catholics under the Castro dictatorship) and even opposing the Scottish independence movement. Yet you refuse to oppose secularist governments when they defy the divine and natural law by such measures as legalizing “homosexual unions,” a matter of divine and natural law on which a Pope can and must intervene.

In fact, your many condemnations of social evils—all of them politically safe targets—are continually belied by your own actions, which compromise the Church’s witness against the manifold errors of modernity:

Contrary to the constant teaching of the Church based on Revelation, you demand worldwide total abolition of the death penalty, no matter how grave the crime, and even the abolition of life sentences, yet you have never called for the abolition of legalized abortion, which the Church has constantly condemned as the mass murder of innocents.

You declare that the simple faithful are sinning gravely if they fail to recycle their household waste and turn off unnecessary lighting, even as you expend millions of dollars on vulgar mass events surrounding your person in various countries, to which you travel with large entourages in charter jets that emit vast quantities of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

You demand open borders for Muslim “refugees” in Europe, who are predominantly military-age males, while you live behind the walls of a Vatican city-state that strictly excludes non-residents—walls built by Leo IV to prevent a second Muslim sack of Rome.

You speak incessantly of the poor and the “peripheries” of society but you ally yourself with the wealthy and corrupt German hierarchy and pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-homosexual celebrities and potentates of globalism.

You deride greedy corporate profit-seeking and “the economy that kills” while you honor with private audiences and receive lavish donations from the world’s wealthiest technocrats and corporate heads, even allowing Porsche to rent the Sistine Chapel for a “magnificent concert… arranged exclusively for the participants,” who paid some $6,000 each for a Roman tour—the first time a Pope has allowed this sacred space to be used for a corporate event.

You demand an end to “inequality” as you embrace communist and socialist dictators who live in luxury while the masses suffer under their yokes.

You condemn an American candidate for the presidency as “not Christian” because he seeks to prevent illegal immigration, but you say nothing against the atheist dictators you embrace, who have committed mass murder, persecute the Church and imprison Christians in police states.

In promoting your personal opinions on politics and public policy as if they were Catholic doctrine, you have not hesitated to abuse even the dignity of a papal encyclical by employing it to endorse debatable and even demonstrably fraudulent scientific claims regarding “climate change,” the “carbon cycle,” “carbon dioxide pollution” and “acidification of the oceans.” The same document also demands that the faithful respond to a supposed “ecological crisis” by supporting secular programs of environmentalism, such as the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, which you have praised even though they call for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health,” meaning contraception and abortion.


A Rampant Indifferentism

While hardly a pioneer respecting the destructive post-conciliar novelties of “ecumenism” and “interreligious dialogue,” you have promoted to a degree not seen even during the worst years of the post-conciliar crisis a specific religious indifferentism that practically dispenses with the mission of the Church as the ark of salvation.

Respecting the Protestants, you declare that they are all members of the same “Church of Christ” as Catholics, regardless of what they believe, and that doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants are comparatively trivial matters to be worked out by agreement of theologians. You simply ignore the theological and moral decrepitude of the Vatican’s Protestant “partners” in “ecumenical dialogue”—so-called churches that reject fundamental dogmas of the one true religion established by Christ in the Catholic Church, including the primacy of Peter, a sacrificial priesthood limited to men, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the existence of seven sacraments. These same man-made religions have totally collapsed morally, approving divorce, contraception, abortion and even the abomination of “homosexual unions” founded on the habitual practice of sodomy. It is a mockery of the Gospel, and contrary to reason itself, to declare that those who profess these grievous errors belong to the same Church as faithful Catholics.

Given that opinion, you have actively discouraged Protestant conversions, including one “Bishop” Tony Palmer, who belonged to a breakaway Anglican sect that purports to ordain women. As Palmer recounted, when he mentioned “coming home to the Catholic Church” you gave this appalling reply: “No one is coming home. You are journeying towards us and we are journeying towards you and we will meet in the middle.” The middle of what? Palmer died in a motorcycle accident shortly thereafter. At your insistence, however, the man whose conversion you deliberately impeded was buried as a Catholic bishop—a mockery that was contrary to the infallible teaching of your predecessor that “ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.” [Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae (1896), DZ 3315]

As to other religions in general, you have adopted as a virtual program the very error condemned by Pope Pius XI only 34 years before Vatican II: “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.” You have been utterly heedless of Pius XI’s admonition “that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” In that regard, you have suggested that even atheists can be saved merely by doing good, thus eliciting delighted praise from the media.

It seems that in your view Rahner’s heretical thesis of the “anonymous Christian,” embracing virtually all of humanity and implying universal salvation, has definitively replaced the teaching of Our Lord to the contrary: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that disbelieves shall be condemned (Mk 16:16).”


Please Pray for Pope Francis

(parts 2 and 3 to follow)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

216 Responses to With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    I was wondering if you’d be posting this latest example of utterly lunatic Remnant extremist more-Catholic-than-the-Pope-ism …

  2. mmvc says:

    I was wondering which of our commenters would be first to object to our posting The Remnant and CFN’s request for unequivocal clarification of the Pope’s words and actions that have triggered so much confusion and error throughout the Church and the world in the past few years…

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    So it’s OK to attack the Pope, but not OK to attack the Remnant ?

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    Powerful stuff, as Frere Rabit used to say. Thank you for posting this CP&S. It’s a hard hitting J’accuse, but not below the belt so far as I can see. I agree with a lot of what’s said, especially the final request that we pray for His Holiness.

  5. kathleen says:

    Jabba, that is the problem – it is not “lunacy”! How we really wish that it were. (We discussed it first together amongst ourselves before deciding to publish.)

    The Remnant and CFN authors back up their accusations to the Pope with links giving proven examples of each one. So how could he justify any of these erroneous acts or words pointed out to him in the “j’accuse” when he is presented with the glaring evidence of their non-Catholicity?

    The tone of the article is harsh – that’s true – but not insulting, and also respectful of the Pope’s elevated position. Catholics worldwide naturally see the coming October “commemoration” he has organised of the disastrous Protestant revolt, a revolt that has aimed such a brutal blow to Christendom, as just the last straw. These traditional Catholic authors feel compelled to speak out for the good of the whole Church against this, and many other, glaring errors the Pope either commits, or condones.

    There will be those like you who will not agree. That can’t be helped. As Maryla says: these Catholics are asking Pope Francis in our name for “unequivocal clarification” of the Church’s teaching once and for all, nothing more. It is a great tragedy that such a thing from faithful Catholic laity to their Holy Father has even come to be deemed necessary.

  6. Maggie says:

    The facts speak for themselves. Modern Rome is corrupt and there are few shepherds to stand up to it.

  7. Toad says:

    I’d guess 99% of Lutherans are Lutherans because their parents were. Same with Muslims, Hindus and atheists. Don’r the implications of that ever get through on CP&S? That whatever brand of religion you subscribe to (or cease to) is an accident of birth in virtually every single case? Is anyone mad enough to deny this?

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    Since his election, I have followed up most of the “exciting” stories that have been told about Pope Francis to the original-language sources, and in nearly every case, bad translations into English and/or willful (mis)interpretation by journalists or others have played a part in the “excitement”.

    I’m not refusing to accept the Remnant and its views on the Pope in a frivolous kneejerk manner, but because I know how extensively the Pope has been misrepresented as much by certain “liberals” keen to portray him as a “liberal Pope” in full “agreement” with their uncatholic notions, as by certain factionalist extremist “traddies”, certain factions within the Roman Curia (the ghastly lies that were told in the English-language Press Conferences during the two sessions of the Synod on the Family about how pro-gay and pro-adultery the talks were supposedly are symptomatic of the same sort of betrayals), and so on and so forth each trying to read into Pope Francis’ statements on this or that nothing other than the contents of their own little agendas and mind games.

    It’s not by chance that I posted that quote the other day : “The world is tired of lying spellbinders and, allow me to say, ‘trendy’ priests or bishops. The people sniff them out – they have God’s sense of smell – and they walk away when they recognise narcissists, manipulators, defenders of their own causes, auctioneers of vain crusades,”

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    in our name

    Not in my name anyway.

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    See, what I find utterly revolting is the posting of this sort of lies : to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.

    … whereas the document from the Argentine Bishops clearly expects continence from such remarried, and describes as particularly scandalous the things that these Remnant nutters want to accuse the Pope of.

    How and why do these accusations come about ? By bad translations from Spanish compounded with a willful desirte to assume the worst.

    This attitude is the exact Hermeneutic of Rupture, that Pope Benedict XVI so strongly condemned, in full action.

    We are talking in this case about a single footnote that certain people are violently insisting on inerpreting in the most heterodox manner imaginable, as if some warped misreading of a footnote could somehow cancel the Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Tradition of the Faith.

    Which is a ludicrous positon to hold.

    And that’s just paragraph 1 of this grossly uncatholic hate mail against the Pope.

  11. Michael says:

    JabbaPapa

    Perhaps you are correct and your objection invites a more thorough look at the issues. However the apparent false humility displayed by the Jesuit Pope and the prevalence of the ‘confusing’ comments means that the comments ring true at first glance. As I said your comments are food for thought and research.

  12. Roger says:

    Vatican II
    The confusing of languages is the anathema of Babel

    Genesis 11:9
    And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries

    The Holy Ghost however gives the Church a clarity of understanding to its members
    Acts Of Apostles 2:6
    And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue

  13. JabbaPapa says:

    The confusing of languages is the anathema of Babel

    Then ask these Remnant people to stop believing all they read in bad translations.

  14. ginnyfree says:

    Let’s see. My first reaction: See ya, Wouldn’t wanna be ya. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. My second reaction. May the Lord have mercy on their souls.

    I’m getting a little sick and tired of the open season some have declared on the Pope. It is possible to disagree without being hostile. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  15. Roger says:

    What was distinctive about the Tower of Babel? Man attempting to reach Heaven and personal prestige and recognition (PR).
    Heaven promised Peace with a Condition.
    But 1960 and onwards Man knew better than God in the pursuit of Global Peace.

    Genesis 11
    [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.
    [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.
    [6] And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
    [7] Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another’ s speech.
    [8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. [9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

  16. mmvc says:

    “Then ask these Remnant people to stop believing all they read in bad translations.”

    Many, many more Catholics are concerned about troubling papal utterances than those you label ‘extremist traddies’. And if the problem really boils down to ‘bad translations’, then how is it that, just from what I have heard and read from friends, family and strangers, priests and lay people alike who live in different countries and continents, speak multiple languages (including Spanish and Italian), they are equally confused and alarmed by the ‘fruits’ of this papacy?

    Images need no translation. And there have been a fair number that are bizarre at best and worrying at worst. Have you followed the links of The Remnant article? Do names such as Emma Bonino, Timothy Radcliffe and Michele de Paolis ring a bell? And do you really believe that the Pope is unaware of the abhorrent Vatican sex ed. programme launched at this year’s WYD (just to mention a few instances where mistranslation cannot be an issue.) Was the Pope’s high praise of Kasper’s ‘theology on knees’ a mistranslation? And were the thirteen Cardinals who last October signed a letter to the Pope expressing their concerns about ambiguities and deviations from orthodoxy at the Synod on the Family liars, nutters, or schemers?

    You accuse The Remnant of writing hate mail and traditional Catholics who seek clarity and guidance from their chief Shepherd of a ‘wilful desire to assume the worst’ and of seeking out ‘exciting stories’. Who the heck are you to make such judgements?

    So many faithful Catholics have struggled and suffered under this papacy. Some have wept bitter tears of sorrow and frustration. I know converts who have confessed to no longer feeling ‘at home’ in the Church and have read of others (including Lutherans) who would not now convert. What most of these people have in common is that they pray, sacrifice and fast for Pope Francis whilst longing for firm leadership and guidance without ambiguities, scandals and infinite shades of grey.

  17. johnhenrycn says:

    mmvc’s last comment is a fair and unemotional summation of the justified discontent felt in quite a few orthodox and knowledgeable quarters of the Church, and as she points out, they include people who are perfectly fluent in foreign languages. I look forward to reading and reflecting on Parts 2 and 3 of this open letter.

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    Many, many more Catholics are concerned about troubling papal utterances than those you label ‘extremist traddies’

    … which is exactly why I also mentioned certain “liberals” keen to portray him as a “liberal Pope” in full “agreement” with their uncatholic notions, certain factions within the Roman Curia (the ghastly lies that were told in the English-language Press Conferences during the two sessions of the Synod on the Family about how pro-gay and pro-adultery the talks were supposedly are symptomatic of the same sort of betrayals), and so on and so forth each trying to read into Pope Francis’ statements on this or that nothing other than the contents of their own little agendas and mind games.

    Why not read this : http://www.spiritualdirection.com/2016/09/22/prosecuting-the-pope

    then how is it that, just from what I have heard and read from friends, family and strangers, priests and lay people alike who live in different countries and continents, speak multiple languages (including Spanish and Italian), they are equally confused and alarmed by the ‘fruits’ of this papacy?

    I did NOT day that it was “just” bad translations.

    There’s also the fact that people can very easily be confused by the Pope’s rhetorical style, especially if these people have any tendency towards either literalism or some poorly assimilated scientific methodology, as it makes very frequent use of deliberate paradox — as the Christ Himself, as well as both Saints Paul and Thomas Aquinas, did too, not-so-incidentally.

    This style includes such things as posing questions in the form of deliberately ambiguous statements, or using a question to make a statement — but generally speaking to encourage people to think about what they may be taking far too much for granted. Naturally, those who desire predictability and stability will be made most uncomfortable by those who point out to them that some foundations of their sometime false security might actually be something that needs some more thought. Negative reactions from such persons against this type of rhetoric are as understandable as they are unavoidable ; less understandable is the Réaction of those who then desire to “shoot the messenger”.

    But what such persons utterly fail to realise is that a major purpose of this form of rhetoric is precisely to encourage the strong reaffirmation of the essentials and the very basics — in this case the orthodoxy — of that which it only pretends to call into question, as well as (in this case) helping to stimulate the Defenders of that Orthodoxy into action, whilst coaxing the enemies of the Orthodoxy out of the woodwork at the same time.

    Please always keep in mind Father Jorge’s & Bishop Bergoglio’s past — he was one of the principal opponents of the so-called “liberation theology” in South America, and he was very effective in his efforts to support the genuine Catholicity against that pseudo-catholicism, including against his own Jesuit and Diocesan superiors who tried to do all they could to prevent it, up to and including sending him out to some dismal village parish right out in the sticks in a clear effort to shut him up.

    Didn’t work then, certainly won’t work now — but this does NOT mean that we should pay any more attention to the false narratives that are created around and about the Pope than we should to that “liberation theology” nor its own gross errors.

    And do you really believe that the Pope is unaware of the abhorrent Vatican sex ed. programme launched at this year’s WYD (just to mention a few instances where mistranslation cannot be an issue.)

    The Pope simply does NOT micromanage every single thing that the Church does, and so yes actually, I can VERY easily believe that this ghastly document has nothing to do with the Pope.

    You cannot on the one hand, mmvc, support a narrative about various pseudocatholic factions in and around the Curia seeking to undermine the Magisterium as well as a narrative seeking to try and blame the Pope personally for every single thing that “the Church” might get wrong. It’s either the one or the other — but one cannot rationally support both simultaneously.

    Furthermore, the Pope is NOT infallible, and I think that it is not Catholic to demand some manner of absolute perfection that none of us is capable of providing ourselves.

    Pope Francis, this Wednesday : “All Christians must forgive! Why? Because they have been forgiven. All of us, each one of us here in the Square, have been forgiven,” the Pope said, explaining that “if God has forgiven me, why shouldn’t I forgive others? Am I greater than God?”

    There is NO forgiveness in this hate mail from the Remnant.

    Was the Pope’s high praise of Kasper’s ‘theology on knees’ a mistranslation?

    Yes, as a matter of fact. Not just because the frenzied blogosphere generally failed to realise that it was one very specific document by Kasper that the Pope was referring to (not, as they claimed, that man’s entire oeuvre in minutest detail), but also because the “teologia in ginnocchio” is associated NOT with Kasper but with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and because “on knees” is not a good translation of the Italian “in ginocchio”, because the English implies theology in submission, whereas the Italian signifies theology as an Act of Divine Worship.

    And were the thirteen Cardinals who last October signed a letter to the Pope expressing their concerns about ambiguities and deviations from orthodoxy at the Synod on the Family liars, nutters, or schemers?

    Most certainly NOT !!

    But you are confused here, I’m afraid.

    First of all, Cardinals of the Roman Curia have not just the right but the actual religious duty to present their concerns in this manner to the Holy Father, even publicly if they may wish, BUT this is a part of their Office and their Ministry, and it does NOT belong to ordinary Lay Catholics, nor even to the vast majority of the Clergy, to do any such thing. (BTW, Kasper has the same rights and duty, just to remind you)

    Second, WHY are these fools at the Remnant still beating this dead horse ?

    NONE of the supposedly “pro-gay” stuff that Fr Rosica, for one, kept insistently churning out at the Press Conferences (to the dismay and sometimes even horror of the Faithful) can be discovered in Amoris Laetitia ; as for the divorced-remarried stuff or the “Communion for everyone” business, I have already pointed out more than once how far certain people are depending on direct falsehoods to keep their story going, based as it is on a single footnote that certain people are violently insisting on interpreting in the most heterodox manner imaginable, as if some warped misreading of a footnote could somehow cancel the Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Tradition of the Faith.

    You accuse The Remnant of writing hate mail and traditional Catholics who seek clarity and guidance from their chief Shepherd of a ‘wilful desire to assume the worst’ and of seeking out ‘exciting stories’. Who the heck are you to make such judgements?

    And who the heck are they to pass judgment on the Pope ????

    And BTW — NO I did not accuse “traditional Catholics who seek clarity and guidance”, you’re just making that up.

    So again — it’s OK to attack the Pope, but not OK to attack the Remnant ?

  19. Toad says:

    “In preparation for this year’s planned commemoration of the Protestant Revolt, Pope Francis prays with the Rev Jens-Martin Kruse in a Lutheran church..” Says the caption.
    Let’s have a bit of sense here. A “planned commemoration” of an event isn’t necessarily approval of it. When the world ‘commemorates” 9/11 each year, nobody suggests it’s because we thought it was a good idea.
    The Reformation is a fact. And is it better, regardless of whether or not it’s the Christian thing to do – to be friendly and loving with Protestants – or to demonstrate endless distaste for them? (no need to answer that. It’s obnious.)

  20. kathleen says:

    Jabba,

    To even suggest that the serious errors pointed out by the authors of The Remnant and CFN are the result of “bad translations” is surely a joke! It is certainly a very feeble argument. While there may have been minor slips here and there in translations, the overall picture is exactly the same for a fluent Spanish speaker (as I am) or a fluent German and Polish speaker (as mmvc is) and for people of every language. For Spanish speakers, you only have to take a look at any of the traditional Catholic sites, like Adelante la fe, to see the same deep concerns expressed from many of the papal utterances these last few years.
    And as mmvc stated: “Images need no translation”. There are plenty of images of some of the Holy Father’s acts that cause deep concern too.

    But I don’t intend to get into another of those circular debates again; it is pointless. The issues the authors of the open Letter take up with the Pope are all valid ones. At least, so far! I do not believe they enjoy criticising the Holy Father either; it is something that goes very much against the grain of a true Catholic. They only do so for the good of the Church.

    Nor do I agree with those who say that the laity should not criticise the Pope. (Ask St Catherine of Sienna if she would agree with you there!) When blatant error is confronting us, and the majority of the hierarchy fail to act, the laity have every right to do so – though always with charity and respect. Father Hunwicke – a most erudite priest – says it is absolutely legitimate, and shows where it says so in Canon Law. (We also pointed this out in an earlier post on CP&S.)

    You might find this letter from a South American friend of Pope Francis’ interesting. It was written at the start of his pontificate:

    http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2014/features_apr14.html

  21. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 11:54

    There is a BIG difference here! The commemoration of 9/11 is for the thousands of victims of the brutal terrorist attack, and all their suffering families.
    It is not a commemoration of their vile Islamic murderers!

    The coming commemoration of the Protestant revolt (OTOH) is seemingly to praise the egomaniacal founder of this heretical break from the One True Church. It’s crazy!! And wrong.

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    Paragraph 2 — (as stated, a full denunciation would likely be a thick volume)

    You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per sewithout exception,

    Matthew : {19:8} He said to them: “Although Moses permitted you to separate from your wives, due to the hardness of your heart, it was not that way from the beginning.
    {19:9} And I say to you, that whoever will have separated from his wife, except because of fornication, and who will have married another, commits adultery, and whoever will have married her who has been separated, commits adultery.”

    Rather than “fornication”, the Greek properly means “whoredom”.

    Nevertheless, there’s that pesky word “except” from the Lord, contrary to these men’s absolutist & hard-hearted holier-than-thou-ness.

    the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament

    John : {8:3} Now the scribes and Pharisees brought forward a woman caught in adultery, and they stood her in front of them.
    {8:4} And they said to him: “Teacher, this woman was just now caught in adultery.
    {8:5} And in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such a one. Therefore, what do you say?”
    {8:6} But they were saying this to test him, so that they might be able to accuse him. Then Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the earth.
    {8:7} And then, when they persevered in questioning him, he stood upright and said to them, “Let whoever is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”
    {8:8} And bending down again, he wrote on the earth.
    {8:9} But upon hearing this, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, with the woman standing in front of him.
    {8:10} Then Jesus, raising himself up, said to her: “Woman, where are those who accused you? Has no one condemned you?”
    {8:11} And she said, “No one, Lord.” Then Jesus said: “Neither will I condemn you. Go, and now do not choose to sin anymore.”
    {8:12} Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me does not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
    {8:13} And so the Pharisees said to him, “You offer testimony about yourself; your testimony is not true.”
    {8:14} Jesus responded and said to them: “Even though I offer testimony about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going.
    {8:15} You judge according to the flesh. I do not judge anyone.
    {8:16} And when I do judge, my judgment is true. For I am not alone, but it is I and he who sent me: the Father.

    the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bimillenial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation

    Catechism of the Catholic Church :

    2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

    the Code of Canon Law

    Canon 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

    and all of Tradition.

    Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

    1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

    2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

    3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

    Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

    §2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

    Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

    Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

    §2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

  23. Roger says:

    Marriage? Its NOT open for Discussion. “.. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder..”

    Creation and Adam and Eve who are One Flesh. “..From the begining of Creation, God Made them male and female…” “..And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh..”

    The problem here isn’t the Marriage Sacrament. It is the reality of a generation of lukewarm so called Catholics and a Curia willing to compromising the Faith. This is a Church that will NOT place Christ first.

    Sin is being promoted as Truth.

    Apocalypse 3
    [16] But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

    Mark 10
    [2] And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
    [3] But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you?
    [4] Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.
    [5] To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.
    [6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
    [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.
    [8] And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
    [9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    [10] And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.
    [11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
    [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery

  24. JabbaPapa says:

    Open rebellion against the Holy Father, rank disobedience of our canonical religious duty to consider his teachings with respect and humility, and gross vilification of the Pope under a pretext of “disagreement” are being promoted here as “truth” ; to say that “Sin is being promoted as Truth” by the Magisterium and the Pope is a LIE.

    Factionalism, sectarianism, the promotion by these so-called “Remnant” of disobedience, the promotion of schismatic and even quasi-heretical doctrines contrary to the Canon Law, to the genuine Tradition and the genuine Orthodoxy of the Catholic Religion, against the clear duty of all of the Christian Faithful to remain in intellectual, spiritual, and religious Communion with the Holy Father are all grossly uncatholic, pure & simple.

    The Remnant are open schismatics : https://ethikapolitika.org/2016/03/29/any-plowman-can-interpret-pascendi-the-remnants-call-for-schism/

    In a “featured” article on the newspaper’s website, The Remnant has proclaimed that “Satan has made his move. He has the See of Peter,” and Bergoglio is “his tool.” And to make the point abundantly clear, Ann Barnhardt tells us that the pope is a “Diabolical Narcissist Peronist-Fascist”; he has committed a “massive crime against humanity,” one that places him above such evil-doers that he ends up “personally responsible for the most loss of human souls to eternal damnation, above Luther, above [M]ohammed, above Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), above Paul VI Montini.”

    And of course there can only be one response to such evil: Pope Francis must be “deposed and anathematized for being a heretic.” And who is to carry out this sentence? It must be “those bishops remaining who still hold the Catholic faith” called together in an “Imperfect Ecumenical Council.”

    One would hope that a publication that claims to be a bastion of orthodoxy would not be a place to find a call for schism. But I can see no other way to interpret an open call for a rump group of bishops to depose the pope.

    And like all calls for schism, it is placed in such vile language as violates every standard of charity and fidelity. All schismatics share a common vile vocabulary and a common low rhetoric. This is not surprising, since as Thomas Aquinas tells us, schism itself is an offense against charity (ST, IIa IIæ, 39, 1, ad 3).

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    More :

    And who can fail to note the irony that on the eve of the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s famous 95 Theses that split the Church apart, some Traditionalists, with their own theses, want to do the same? And to make the irony complete, they seem to want a council to overrule the pope, which sounds a lot like the conciliarism they pretend to oppose.

  26. Toad says:

    “The coming commemoration of the Protestant revolt (OTOH) is seemingly to praise the egomaniacal founder of this heretical break from the One True Church. “
    …The weasel word here is “seemingly.” And you were prudent to insert it, Kathleen.
    Supposing your parents had both been devout Lutherans?
    You would most probably think Luther a hero for breaking away from the rotten, corrupt old Catholics, wouldn’t you? And maybe you would say, “Well, we ought to let the past bury the past, etc, and unite in the face of violent anti-Christian oppression.”
    Well, possibly you might – who knows?
    And nobody’s asking you to become a Lutheran, are they?.

    [The moderator – Please have a little mercy on us. We’ll leave your words unmoderated but would like to remind you that we have already beaten this old horse of the laws of causality quite to death.]

    “Marriage? Its NOT open for Discussion. “
    Everything is, Roger, in a free world. Or else it’s totalitarianism.
    Where everything not compulsory – is forbidden.

  27. Roger says:

    St Joseph Dream

    Matthew 2:
    13 And after they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him.

    Pope Leo XIII
    “..
    On October 13, 1884 Pope Leo XIII, just after celebrating Mass, turned pale and collapsed as though dead. Those standing nearby rushed to his side. They found him alive but the pontiff looked frightened. He then recounted having a vision of Satan approaching the throne of God, boasting that he could destroy the Church.

    According to Pope Leo XIII the Lord reminded him that his Church was imperishable. Satan then replied, “Grant me one century and more power of those who will serve me, and I will destroy it.” Our Lord granted him 100 years.

    The Lord then revealed the events of the 20th century to Leo XIII. He saw wars, immorality, genocide and apostasy on a large scale. Immediately following this disturbing vision, he sat down and wrote the prayer to St. Michael. For decades it was prayed at Mass until the 1960’s. Like many of the Church’s spiritual defenses, it was discontinued in the second half of the 20th century.
    ..”

    October 13th 1917 Fatima Miracle

    Pope Benedict XV
    “..If on the other hand We examine the state of public and private morals, the constitutions and laws of nations, We shall find that there is a general disregard and forgetfulness of the supernatural, a gradual falling away from the strict standard of Christian virtue, and that men are slipping back more and more into the shameful practices of paganism..”

    A GENERAL DISREGARD AND FORGETFULNESS OF THE SUPERNATURAL.

    If St Joseph had not responded immediately to His Dream the Child would have been killed!
    Leo XIII Obeyed Heaven and immediately put in place the St Michael prayer.
    Pius XII The Fatima Pope.

    We then come to the shame of 1960 onwards and in Rome DISREGARD OF THE SUPERNATURAL. that list of shame! the publication of a list of masons in the Curia, the choice of following human reasoning Vatican II and the burying of the Fatima message. Human reasoning, Human respect just like Babel.

    Is it any wonder that this talk of Traditionalists, Modernists, Evolutionists and all the …ists dominates Catholic discussion . Human thinking and reasoning that’s Babel.

    Unless Rome places God First and His lambs that Catholics (not the protestant churches, not muslims etc..) The Catholic flock!. God will turn His back of Rome. If this seems unthinkable I strongly suggest looking at what happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

    The world or God?

  28. Toad says:

    “According to Pope Leo XIII the Lord reminded him that his Church was imperishable. Satan then replied, “Grant me one century and more power of those who will serve me, and I will destroy it.” Our Lord granted him 100 years.”
    Why would Our Lord stand by and permit such wicked attacks on His “children” – whom He claims to love? Is it all nothing but a celestial game, with “handicapping?” Like giving someone a break of 15 in snooker?
    Sounds like nonsense to me. I don’t believe a word of it.

    “The Lord then revealed the events of the 20th century to Leo XIII. He saw wars, immorality, genocide and apostasy on a large scale.”
    Why didn’t God just do something about it? I know, Free Will. Some comfort for six million dead Jews. Apparently God considered the Free Will of the Nazis more valuable than the Jew’s lives.
    There’s something quite illogical about it all. It seems to me.

    “Human thinking and reasoning that’s Babel.”
    I agree that your “thinking ” certainly isn’t human, Roger.
    In fact, it’s not “thinking” at all. Just parroting texts.

  29. Roger says:

    Toad
    I really do not need to repeat the details in Portugal do I? The Masonic Republican with State Church separation etc.. etc.. The Planned World War I.
    Leo XIII imprisoned in the Vatican by a Masonic Republican Revolution in 19th century. The Masonic French Revolution. The Requested Consecration of England (by Leo XIII) which was done BUT dropped off the calendar, because it was supposed to repeated every year.
    Then 1929 the Request (remember) of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart Of Mary and the promise of Peace.
    Shall I go on?
    I remind that the Atom Bomb was dropped twice on two Catholic Cities in Japan. So the Fatima message if the Consecration wasn’t done was “The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated”
    Then that express year 1960 for the opening of a 3rd secret.

    St Joseph acted on God’s word he didn’t prevaricate for 100 years. Leo XIII acted immediately to protect the Mass by the St Michael prayer. Our Lady did she prevaricate when the Angel Gabriel appeared to Her?

    Think of Jonas and Understand that Prophecy is always CONDITIONAL. If you prevaricate and decided to ignore Heaven and instead proceed with a human plan then you cannot blame Heaven.

    To be a Catholic is to believe in the SUPERNATURAL its called FAITH. To be a Catholic is to believe in Creation , Adam and Eve, The Passion of Christ, Shall I continue?

  30. Toad says:

    “I really do not need to repeat the details in Portugal do I?”
    No you certainly don’t Rogbert – but that won’t stop you doing it – until we are all comatose.

    By the way, is it common knowledge that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “Catholic” cities?
    Where does anyone else claim that?

  31. JabbaPapa says:

    Then that express year 1960 for the opening of a 3rd secret

    Sister Lucia unambiguously clarified that the 1960 date came from her own impressions only, and NOT from Saint Mary nor Lucia’s private revelations from the Visions.

  32. JabbaPapa says:

    By the way, is it common knowledge that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “Catholic” cities?

    They were.

    The Atom Bomb of Nagasaki killed 60% of Japan’s Catholics.

  33. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 7:09

    Perhaps, then, you can tell us how we should “consider [the Pope’s] teachings” (and behaviour) that fly in direct contrast to all previous Popes and the timeless Magisterial teachings of the Church? You have before you, in now an extensive open letter divided into three parts, dozens of examples of just that. Not “lies”, nor rumours, nor exaggerations, mistranslations, etc., but hard evidence. How can Pope Francis possibly justify so many errors and abuses of our Catholic Faith’s teaching and traditions?

    After you brand the Remnant as “open schismatics” (which they are not) you then go on to quote another blogger who quotes yet another author, the fiery Ann Barnhardt, and her insults against the Pope!! What on earth has she got to do with all this? She may be a sometime collaborator on their blog, but she had nothing to do with this letter. The three authors above did not insult the Pope in this manner. You may not agree with the strong tone they use to address their legitimate complaints to the Pope, but their language was not uncivil.

    They end their letter requesting prayers for the Pope, as has been pointed out already. Despite the well-known dubious manner Pope Francis was elected to the Chair of Peter, the Remnant and Catholic Family News recognise and address him as the Holy Father.

    P.S. No one is suggesting “splitting the Church apart”, but in PROTECTING her integrity. The absolute opposite of letting Protestant ideas seep in uncontested.

  34. Roger says:

    Jabba
    Quite right on
    Hiroshima and Hagasaki thank you August 6 and 9 1945

    The Sign of the War?
    “..Lucia recognised the sign of God in the extraordinary aurora bored is which illuminated the night sky on January 24-25, 1938. She was convinced that the world war was about to break out and did everything possible to hasten forward the recommendations of our Lady. But she was to be convinced that the hour of mercy had not yet arrived. ..”
    World War II ended with the Atom Bomb (fire from Heaven)

    “Sister Lucia unambiguously clarified that the 1960 date came from her own impressions only,
    and NOT from Saint Mary nor Lucia’s private revelations from the Visions.”

    1960? I suggest you ask Archbishop Bertone about that word processed document
    (Lucia never used a word processor and the signature has been declared a forgery)

    On the envelope and in Lucia’s own writing
    “Por ordem expressa de Nossa Senhora este envelope só pode ser aberto em 1960”

    Written in 1950’s
    “..During the July apparition our Lady confided a secret to the children, the two first parts of which were only divulged after the Second World War had broken out. The third part, sealed and written in Lucia’s own hand, is at present in the possession of the bishop of Leiria and will be opened only in 1960. ..”

    “..
    Sister Lucia provided yet another early clue to the content of the Secret when she insisted that the Bishop of Fatima promise that the sealed envelope in which she had sent him the Secret “would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first.”66 On the outside of the envelope Sister Lucia had described as “a letter,” she had, accordingly, written: “By express order of Our Lady, this envelope can only be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria.”

    {“Por ordem expressa de Nossa Senhora este envelope só pode ser aberto em 1960, por Sua Ex.cia Rev.ma o Senhor Cardeal Patriarca de Lisboa ou por Sua Ex.cia Rev.ma o Senhor Bispo de Leiria.” (Envelope shown by Cardinal Bertone on May 31, 2007 on national television in Italy}

    “..
    Sister Lucia later explained the significance of this date to Cardinal Ottaviani during the 1955 interrogation. As Ottaviani revealed in the aforementioned public address: “The message was not to be opened before 1960. I asked Sister Lucia, ‘Why this date?’ She answered, ‘Because then it will be clearer (mais claro).’”
    {Documentation Catholique, March 19, 1967, Col. 542; cited in WTAF, Vol. III, p.725}.
    In answer to the same question from Canon Barthas in 1946, Lucia replied simply: “Because Our Lady wishes it so.”
    {Canon Barthas, Fatima, Merveille du XXe Siècle (Fatima-Editions, 1952), p. 83. }

    “..
    Was disclosure of the Secret in 1960 “optional”?
    In response to the objection that disclosure of the Secret by the conciliar Popes was merely optional, it suffices to say that the Mother of God would have had no reason to deliver the Secret in the first place had she intended that it would be kept “forever under absolute seal.” The Mother of God would not speak in order to be silenced—even by a Pope. As Pope John Paul II himself declared at Fatima in 1982: “Can the Mother, who with all the force of the love that she fosters in the Holy Spirit and desires the salvation of every man, can she remain silent when she sees the very bases of her children’s salvation undermined? No, she cannot remain silent.” Nor can even the Pope silence her. ..”
    {“Può la Madre, la quale con tutta la potenza del suo amore, che nutre nello Spirito Santo, desidera la salvezza di ogni uomo, tacere su ciò che mina le basi stesse di questa salvezza? No, non lo può!” }

  35. Toad says:

    I’ll rescind that question, on reflection. I don’t believe you were deliberately being dishonest, just that we disagree on what constitutes a coherent answer here.
    And really, what does it matter as long as we sorry humans are generous, respectful, and tolerant to one another?

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    the well-known dubious manner Pope Francis was elected to the Chair of Peter

    ?????!!!???!!??

    Another conspiracy theory ???

    how we should “consider [the Pope’s] teachings” (and behaviour) that fly in direct contrast to all previous Popes and the timeless Magisterial teachings of the Church?

    I simply do not believe this “exciting” narrative.

    I have NOT ONCE seen any example where the Pope has ever contradicted ANY doctrine belonging to the Deposit of Faith.

    Certain Traditionalists claim the opposite, but in EVERY case I have EVER come across, they have been falsely claiming that non-infallible teachings or customs or traditions are somehow “timeless” and “unchangeable”, and even in some cases where it is blatantly manifest that they are not.

    This is nothing new — St Thomas Aquinas condemned such over-zealousness back in the 13th Century, and it has been organised as a distinct political faction within the Church since the 15th Century, of which BTW such men as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were part of.

    It is a tendency towards a certain manner of Puritanism, that NOT all Traditional Catholics, or even Traditionalist ones, can be realistically accused of, most certainly NOT, but which is however very clearly present in the very exaggerated claims that the Remnant has been making against every single Pope since Pope Saint John Paul II and about a particular false and overtly schismatic conception that they desire to support and propagandise about the Catholic Faith, Religion, and Church.

    No one is suggesting “splitting the Church apart”

    The notion is intrinsic to the false conception of a “remnant Church” of “real catholics” that the “Vatican II church”/”Pope Francis church”/etc. is presented as not being part of.

    ——–

    Father Z : http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/08/ask-father-is-it-a-mortal-sin-to-criticize-the-pope/

    (emphases mine)

    From a reader…

    Can a Catholic criticize the Pope? Or is it a mortal sin to do so?

    Yes.

    No. Not necessarily.

    Catholics are obliged to have filial love for and obedience to our Holy Father. Neither that love nor that obedience are required to be blind or stupid.

    Criticism of the Pope can become a mortal sin if one’s criticism is filled with a hatred and vitriol that shows a lack of respect or filial love for Our Sovereign Pontiff. One must also consider to whom you show that lack of respect. If by your words and actions you harm his reputation with others unjustly, you do him and them a grave wrong. You also may be committing the sin of sacrilege.

    The Pope is Christ’s Vicar, and deserves all the respect of that office.

    The Pope is, however, not Christ. Nor does his charism of infallibility render him perfect in all his words and actions.

    He may do things that are objectionable. When he does, he can be criticized – respectfully.

    But be careful in aiming criticism at the Pope. Be careful to whom you open your mind or reveal your attitude. Examine your conscience with brutal honesty, remembering that His Holiness has a perspective on the Church that we do not.

    Catholics loves their Popes. That doesn’t mean that we always like them or everything they do.

    We should, however, avoid giving scandal. Maintain respect for the Holy Father when speaking about him to others, heed his words on faith and morals, and give him obedience when it is called for.

  37. Toad says:

    “No one is suggesting “splitting the Church apart”

    n my opinion, “Splitting the Church apart,” is a good idea. No point in going on like this, snarling and bickering. So, yet another religion emerges to add to the thousands extant. Won’t hurt. Nothing new.

    Perceptive readers will notice that Toad, at 8.07, has “rescinded” a question he apparently never earlier asked. Yes, it is odd, isn’t it?

  38. mmvc says:

    ‘Criticism of the Pope can become a mortal sin if one’s criticism is filled with a hatred and vitriol that shows a lack of respect or filial love for Our Sovereign Pontiff.’

    Indeed. But the only displays of lack of respect, hatred and vitriol I see here come from you, Jabba. What is distressing is your continued use of intemperate and insulting language directed at the traditional Catholics who wrote and support this open letter to the pope in all sincerity and out of love for the Church, the Truth, the pope and his office. As are your lengthy convoluted attempts to demonstrate that there are no grievances to be had, that any perceptions of ambiguity, duplicity, error and confusion are not only unfounded but brought about by wilful liars and thrill seekers!

    I’m no expert in philosophy, theology or canon law, Jabba, but I have eyes and ears and sufficient ability to discern that whilst not denying the positive fruits, this papacy has thus far sown much confusion and error causing distress amongst faithful Catholics and rejoicing amongst those who oppose the Truth. Without strong, clear guidance from their shepherd, how can the sheep reach safe pastures and avoid being scattered or, worse still, devoured by ravenous wolves?

    You constantly suggest that the pope is a victim of deliberate misinterpretation and mistranslation. If that is the case then why have the many heartfelt petitions and calls for clarification from the humblest lay Catholic to the highest prelate been met with stony silence?

    Yet we know, that in other instances corrective statements have been issued by the Vatican:

    http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/5825/0/pope-francis-issues-directive-contradicting-advice-of-cardinal-sarah

    A number of renowned and truly Catholic theologians and Canon lawyers (far more knowledgeable than you or I will ever be given their lifetime of study and experience and therefore far better equipped to correctly analyse AL) whose only goal is to seek, safeguard and promote the Truth have added their voices to appeals for correction and clarification from the pope. Because they too are aware of the DISASTROUS EFFECT ALL THE CONFUSION IS HAVING ON THE GROUND, WORLDWIDE, and most importantly amongst Catholic who have neither the time or inclination to delve deeply into theology, rhetorical styles, argentine temperaments, modern jesuit (mal-) formation, etc.

    Here’s just one recent example:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-philosopher-pope-must-revoke-objectively-heretical-statements-to-avoid

    Oh and I beg you, please don’t reiterate in your favoured pretzel style analyses with endless selectively chosen out-of-context cut and pastes concluding that there’s ‘nothing to see here’ and that The Remnant and their ilk are simply delusional, wilfully nasty idiots and nutters. Give us a break!

  39. ginnyfree says:

    Actually Road, I’m with you in this regard. Let all the Liberals, the Progressives, the uber-Traditionalists and the rest of the dissidents take all their opinions and practices out the door with them. Like Benedict XVI said, a smaller but much holier bunch of pew sitters. They can build their all-inclusive, all-exclusive, all-embracing and all defying churches wherever they may go. We’ll all be better off without them. Not a split church, which is what we are actually living with as it is now, but a church void of the dissenting persons who desire to change her from within. They’ve wrecked the place. It is time to show them the door. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  40. ginnyfree says:

    O fudge. Sorry Toad. I changed your name by typo. Sheesh. Please forgive.

  41. Toad says:

    “Actually Toad, I’m with you in this regard.”
    Hmm. Maybe i’d better reconsider my position then, Sinny.
    Get Rogbert’s advice, perhaps?
    “..the only displays of lack of respect, hatred and vitriol I see here come from you, Jabba.”
    Yes indeed, hatred, vitriol, snivelling, and so on – is entirely a matter of opinion, ultimately.
    But who the heck am I to say that?
    Except I didn’t know I had to be anyone in particular.
    Which bit of comment will be “moderated” like last time, for fear of upsetting Mmvc again. Can’t have that, can we? Upset the apple-cart. Tears before bedtime.

  42. John says:

    In Catholic Ireland the weekly newspaper The Irish Catholic in its edition of 22 September 2016 features a call by the Jesuit priest Father Gerry O’ Hanlon S.J., for the issue by the bishops of Irish guidelines to clarify if and when divorced and civilly-remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion. Father O’Hanlon is a prominent theologian and very erudite like Father Z.

  43. mmvc says:

    Oh sweet Toad! Didn’t know you were so sensitive and caring… 😉
    Let me assure you, the old ‘apple-cart’ is really quite cheerful 🙂

  44. Toad says:

    Of course, what all this ‘sexy ‘stuff really means is that nobody with half a brain would ever get married in the first place. So, when they do. it’s almost always a mess, which they regret getting into.e So we have to start from there, too
    …And probably finish from there – as well.

    “Oh sweet Toad! Didn’t know you were so sensitive and caring…”
    That’s because you probably weren’t paying attention, Mmvc.
    I do care a lot – about a lot of things. But not very much about organised religion.
    Which seems, to me, to be generally a matter of where, or how, or when, you happened to be born, more than anything remotely more sensible, or reasonable, or “Planned by God,” Except that God seems pleased enough with the Catholics in Sidcup, but not with the Catholics in the Italian village that He brutally earthquaked to death the other day. Serves us right for being so originally sinful. of course, but what about the Sidcup sinful? Why no earthquake there so far?.
    Which is, in my opinion – the daftest possible way of deciding any religion, be it Hindu,or Mormon, or A Ancestor Worship, or whatever – to be the “only” right one.
    …So I won’t do it myself. Too “odd.”

  45. kathleen says:

    “Let all the Liberals, the Progressives, (like you & Mr Kehoe, by any chance?) the uber-Traditionalists (don’t know any!) and the rest of the dissidents (oh, loads of them, as we can see) take all their opinions and practices out the door with them.”

    Bye bye then, ginnyfree.

    “a call by the Jesuit priest Father Gerry O’ Hanlon S.J., for the issue by the bishops of Irish guidelines to clarify if and when divorced and civilly-remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion.”

    Oh dear! Mr John Kehoe has just knocked all Jabba’s lengthy defence of this issue for six.😦

    —–

    Jabba,

    In your re-blog of Father Z’s article you have used the emphasis of Father’s words to suit your side of the argument. Switch the emphasis around and you get a totally different picture of what Fr Z really says, justifying all faithful Catholics who need to voice their “burning concerns”!
    True, he says we must “be careful” when we aim criticism at the Pope; this we have been. No insults or disrespect from any of us here; for these things you would have to look into other sites.

    You only pick out certain points of the argument to pull to pieces, leaving the tricky ones behind. Just one example (for my time is limited): how can you pretend Pope Francis had no blame in allowing the revolting sex-ed programme composed by Vatican officials to be published? Innocent little children are going be indoctrinated with this horror AGAINST THEIR PARENTS’ WISHES, when it was his duty as defender of the Faith to have stopped it?

    So everything Pope Francis says and does is tickety-boo in your honest opinion? Did you bother to read all the many links given in these three j’accuse articles, or look at the cringing pics (e.g., the Pope fawning over flaunting sodomites)? If you had you would have seen that they are not “lies” at all, but FACTS.

    But let’s talk about our Holy Father, Pope Francis. Quite likely, as a person, he is kind and generous. (We don’t know him personally, but we could assume this from the impressions we get via the media.) Also nobody, certainly no one who has commented here, who is calling Pope Francis out on this deluge of un-Catholic stuff has anything but the greatest respect for his role as Christ’s Vicar on Earth. But as that article of priestly obedience reminded us: “obedience to the Pope and bishops has limitations; obedience to God does not.” Ever! And let’s be frank: there are things – not everything, but some of great importance – that with Pope Francis conflict with our obedience to God!

    Idiots and papolatrers abound everywhere and say all sorts of absurd things, but I know you are an intelligent man with a good knowledge of ecclesial documents and Church teaching, and it puzzles me how you appear to applaud all this glaringly obvious error. It also saddens me that you, of all people, cannot see how all those of us who truly love our Catholic Church are suffering from the mountain of abuses we are witnessing today that our Pope appears blind to.

  46. Roger says:

    The sex-education outside the family? Seems that the Catholic families views both of the Faith and traditional family and structure are outdated. This is the Marxist model the parallels are interesting.
    “..
    The care of children also becomes a public affair in a Marxist society. Children play an insignificant role in the family of the ultimate society since they become the entire community’s responsibility.
    In effect, children are disengaged from the family in socialist society so the “school becomes literally a home.”
    Alienating children from their parents ensures that children formulate their worldview according to the education provided by the Marxist state rather than according to the outdated views regarding religion and the traditional family structure held by their parents.
    ..”

  47. JabbaPapa says:

    Oh dear! Mr John Kehoe has just knocked all Jabba’s lengthy defence of this issue for six

    Father Gerry O’ Hanlon S.J. is neither the Pope, nor a Prelate of the Pontifical Council for the Family, nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nor any other part of the Magisterium, nor even a Bishop, and so whatever Errors he may decide to publish do not in any way justify the publication of Errors by others.

  48. JabbaPapa says:

    how can you pretend Pope Francis had no blame in allowing the revolting sex-ed programme composed by Vatican officials to be published?

    I’m not “pretending” anything, whereas it is blatantly obvious that Pope Francis does not micro-manage every single little detail of everything coming out of “Rome”.

    So everything Pope Francis says and does is tickety-boo in your honest opinion?

    Don’t be silly — though I take note that you seem to be suggesting that one can either be anti-Francis or pro-Francis without any room left over for any other positions ?

    There is a great difference between perhaps disliking these or those individual statements and accusing him of material heresies …

    Did you bother to read all the many links given in these three j’accuse articles

    I have pointed out that a detailed refutation of these articles in all of their principles and details would be a voluminous undertaking, and I have already pointed out my familiarity with the detail of these accusations, as well as the fact that I have spent a great deal of time and effort over the years following these accusations to their original sources to discover that falsehood is found in those accusations in almost every case.

    or look at the cringing pics (e.g., the Pope fawning over flaunting sodomites)

    Pope Martin V, Ad Evitanda Scandala (1418) : To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ’s faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place.

    No one shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone — but the Pope must be required to do so, against the clear and binding instruction of his predecessor on the Throne of Peter ?

    But as that article of priestly obedience reminded us: “obedience to the Pope and bishops has limitations; obedience to God does not.” Ever!

    Do be very, VERY careful with this, as it is a principle that has led millions of Christ’s Faithful onto a pathway towards Heresy and Schism. Can’t you see that this is how Martin Luther thought ?

    you appear to applaud all this glaringly obvious error

    You are mistaken, kathleen, and you have not understood that you are being led down a crooked path by these so-called “Remnant” and their ilk.

    BTW, Fr. François Rabelais in his Quart Livre denounced the Papefigues just as much as the Papolatres.

  49. kathleen says:

    Oh, come on Jabba, how can you keep a straight face and state that the promulgation of the “revolting sex-ed programme” issued by certain high-ranking members of the Vatican (that can only be seen as a method of perverting the innocence of children, and even encouraging them towards sexual sin) is just one more “single little detail“?? It is of prime importance in the wicked dangers it will bring to children and young people’s souls.
    Nor is it possible that Pope Francis did not know about it. I refuse to accept such an unrealistic suggestion.

    So everything Pope Francis says and does is tickety-boo in your honest opinion?

    You may see this question as “silly”, but let’s allow others to judge the evidence for themselves. In your one-man war against traditional Catholics, and by defending tooth and nail in endless pages of cyber ink EVERY convoluted word he utters, and every unseemly act he commits, I would say it was an obvious thing to ask you, or to insinuate.
    Neither does it suggest one can only be at opposite ends of the spectrum in our “positions” about Francis. Most of us hold no particular position at all, wishing only for a firm, clear leadership from our Pope. A Pope should be willing and glad to “suffer with Christ”, in the same way St Peter proclaimed with rejoicing, after he was released from prison for fearlessly preaching the Gospel…. A Pope should not wish to go with the PC ways of the world, soaking up its acclamation, parading as ‘oh so liberal-minded’!! In what sort of light does this put his predecessors, who did not act in this way? Bad, I’d say. But they would not have compromised Catholic Truth for the sake of the adulation of the secular world.

    When I asked you if you had looked at the links given for the accusations, you say that::

    …falsehood is found in those accusations in almost every case.

    I’m sorry, but I simply do not believe you here. We also have eyes to see and ears to hear all the evidence set before us – something previous generations, deprived of modern technology, could not benefit from – and so we know they are not “falsehoods”.

    Pope Franis also invites scandal when he organises these effusive meetings for proud public sodomites, lesbians, pro-abortionists, etc., making sure the cameras are there so that everyone can see how very (ahem) ‘merciful’ he is. That is not the same case as being civil to each and everyone he might meet in spontaneous meetings. The ones we are talking about were arranged meetings and they send all the wrong messages to the world.

    And to end off, Martin Luther did not “obey God”; that is the whole point! He twisted the Gospel passages to hoodwink his gullible followers in a cunning manner to discredit the Catholic Church’s sacred teachings. Holy saints (e.g. Thomas More), the Council of Trent, and many theologians and apologists since Luther’s revolt, have fully debunked all his arguments.

  50. JabbaPapa says:

    Oh, come on Jabba, how can you keep a straight face and state that the promulgation of the “revolting sex-ed programme” issued by certain high-ranking members of the Vatican (that can only be seen as a method of perverting the innocence of children, and even encouraging them towards sexual sin) is just one more “single little detail“??

    Because I didn’t — you’re twisting my words into something not at all intended ; which is precisely what I’ve been complaining of throughout about these self-styled “Remnant” in their false interpretations of what they read.

    In your one-man war against traditional Catholics

    Oh don’t be ridiculous — attacking the false claims and position of these self-styled “Remnant” does NOT constitute attacking all traditional Catholics, and I’ve stated quite clearly that I’m not attacking even all traditionalist ones either — (“NO I did not accuse “traditional Catholics who seek clarity and guidance”, you’re just making that up.” ; “that NOT all Traditional Catholics, or even Traditionalist ones, can be realistically accused of“)

    But your seeming reaction to assume that an attack on any traditionalists is somehow a “war” against all of traditional Catholicism is a worrying symptom of the very factionalism and sectarianism that disturbs me the most during these episodes of “exciting” “RemnantRéaction, agitation, and political provocation.

    The notion being pushed by these self-styled “Remnant” that there are some “traditional Catholics” who are “properly Catholic” and are somehow separate from the “Vatican II/Nu-Church/Pope Francis Catholics” who are not is intrinsically schismatic.

    We also have eyes to see and ears to hear all the evidence set before us

    I have in the other thread done my best to show how a Hermeneutic of Rupture can lead to the false interpretations of these “Remnant“.

    I simply do not believe you here

    It’s hardly my fault if you prefer listening to extremists.

    Pope Franis also invites scandal when he organises these effusive meetings for proud public sodomites, lesbians, pro-abortionists, etc., making sure the cameras are there so that everyone can see how very (ahem) ‘merciful’ he is.

    This is just false, and it is one very important part of the Pope’s Ministry (any Pope, not just this one especially) to meet with sinners, Apostates, Heretics, even pagans and atheists, in his religious duty of evangelisation towards all men and women in this world, which certainly does include and not exclude such people as these.

    The social exclusion that you seem to desire against such people as those is exactly contrary to Vatican II (or do you think the Tradition of the Faith is somehow to simply reject that Ecumenical Council, which it surely cannot be given that the Tradition requires us to accept all Ecumenical Councils under penalty of anathema and schism) — but even so, surely Pope Martin V’s Ad Evitanda Scandala should be understood and practiced by any genuinely Traditional Catholic, not excluding the Pope ?

    And to end off, Martin Luther did not “obey God”

    No — but he thought that he was doing so, and I’m sure that these self-styled “Remnantthink they are too — and so of course did Arius, Nestorius, Donatus, Marcian, Montanus, and Pelagius.

    Every Schism starts with a group of people who insist that they are right and that the Catholic Church is somehow wrong in some way, including in imprudent applications of such absolutist maxims as “obedience to the Pope and bishops has limitations; obedience to God does not. Ever!”.

    See instead this 2012 letter by SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay : http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-general-council-of-society-of.html

    To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church.

    With the attitude you recommend, no room is left for the Gideons or the Davids or for those who count on the Lord’s help. You reproach us with being naïve or fearful, but rather it is your vision of the Church that is too human, and even fatalistic. You see the dangers, the plots, the difficulties, but you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost. If one grants that Divine Providence leads the affairs of men while safeguarding their liberty, it is also needful to admit that the gestures in our favor over the last several years are also under its guidance. Now, they trace a line — not straight — but clearly in favor of Tradition. Why should this suddenly stop when we are doing our utmost to be faithful and to intensify our prayer? Will the good God let us fall at the most critical moment? That does not make a lot of sense, especially as we are not trying to impose on Him the least self-will, but are trying to examine events closely so as to discern what God wants, and being disposed to all that shall please Him. At the same time, your description is lacking in realism as regards both the degree of the errors and their extent.

    This failure to distinguish is leading one or the other of you to a hardening of your position. This is a grave matter because this caricature no longer corresponds with reality and in future it will logically end in a real schism.

    On the one hand, you saddle the current authorities with all the errors and evils to be found in the Church while leaving aside the fact that they are trying at least partly to disengage themselves from the most serious of them (the condemnation of the “hermeneutic of rupture” denounces real errors). On the other hand, you act as if ALL of them are implicated in this pertinacity (“they’re all modernists,” “all are rotten”). Now that is manifestly false. The great majority are still caught up in the movement, but not all.

    This dialectic between truth and faith on one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood.

    Bishop Fellay clearly understands this real danger of schism from listening to the extremist positions within the traditionalist sphere — but I am to be attacked for denouncing the very same evils ?

    Look at the very end of this quote : This dialectic between truth and faith on one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. — I will go a step further, and say that it is contrary to Cartholicity, Orthodoxy, and any genuine Tradition of the Holy Faith.

  51. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 18:53

    I did not “twist your words”; in fact I was careful not to. Scroll back and see for yourself (@ 9:21 on 9/26).

    Aaaand once again: I do not believe the articles the Remnant links to are “falsehoods” because they produce links to other Catholic sites, to reliable authors, philosophers, theologians, etc., even the Vatican itself, TO PROVE THEIR POINTS that the Pope did or said what they report. Your going on and on saying they are false “interpretations” is just plainly ridiculous!

    One reason we have been talking past each other in some measure, I realise, is because I am defending all the millions of traditional Catholics in the Church who have “burning concerns” about some serious errors being committed by Pope Francis, not confining this defence to the authors of the Liber who have acted heroically as a voice for all of us. Whereas in this latest lengthy screed, I realise you appear to aim your diatribe mostly against the members of the Remnant who you say are threatening to create a schism, and not against all traditionalists.
    The Remnant do not want a schism either (how could they?) but their anger and dismay at the almost daily shocks coming from Pope Francis and/or his closest allies in the hierarchy (of a modernist bent), together with their deep love for the Bride of Christ, compels them to use this strong language to demonstrate their horror.

    It is mean of you to compare them with the heretical Martin Luther who had no love for God, or anyone – only for himself! He condoned and even promoted all sorts of grave sins, including lust and adultery, and spewed hate and condemnations against the Holy Mass and the Papacy. The Remnant hold morality, the Mass and the papal role VERY HIGHLY. There may exist sedevacantists among some extreme conservative groups elsewhere in the Church – this is a road I shan’t go along for lack of knowledge about these groups – but true Catholics, who hold to all their Church’s teachings on faith and morals, want to fix the errors and abuse from within the walls of the Church!

    I must say I found Bishop Fellay’s letter, that I read in its entirety over on Rorate Caeli, very interesting and even quite poignant, as he and the other signatories tried, pleadingly, to persuade the three hostile bishops to Pope Benedict XVI’s propositions for reunion of the SSPX with the main body of the Church, to see the error of their ways. It had little (almost nothing really) to do with what we had been discussing – except to address your point on the Hermeneutic of Rupture – for the open three-part letter is accusing he who is already in the Church and who is on the Chair of Peter as the one causing the concern and threatening this Hermeneutic of Rupture with Catholic Tradition!!

    I hate to say this, but it is Pope Francis himself who is to blame for the current sea of confusion rocking the barque of the Church, and who refuses to address the pleas of the flock clamouring for clarity and begging him to revoke the ambiguousness in AL and various troubling statements he has made. This worsening chaos (or “mess” as he calls it) is what is truly contrary to Catholicity, Orthodoxy, and any genuine Tradition of the Holy Faith.

  52. JabbaPapa says:

    I did not “twist your words”; in fact I was careful not to. Scroll back and see for yourself.

    I’m afraid that you did.

    The fact that actions from “Rome” exist in a sometimes bewildering profusion of complex “detail” (OED 2nd Edition 2009 — “detail, n. 1. a.1.a The dealing with matters item by item; detailed treatment; attention to particulars. Esp. in phrase in (†the) detail, item by item; part by part; minutely; circumstantially. So to go into detail, i.e. to deal with or treat a thing in its individual particulars.”) — does NOT mean that the promulgation of the “revolting sex-ed programme” issued by certain high-ranking members of the Vatican (that can only be seen as a method of perverting the innocence of children, and even encouraging them towards sexual sin) is just one more “single little detail“ — (3. a.3.a An item, a particular (of an account, a process, etc.); a minute or subordinate portion of any (esp. a large or complex) whole. (See also 4 a.) : ‘But that is a detail!’ was (c 1897) a current phrase humorously making light of what was perhaps really an important element in the matter in question.)

    I certainly did NOT intend that the word “detail” should be interpreted as you have done, but I must admit that I would have been far happier if you had simply accepted my statement that you misinterpreted me, instead of attempting to insist that the intention of my words was so alien to my reasons for using them.

    Aaaand once again: I do not believe the articles the Remnant links to are “falsehoods” because they produce links to other Catholic sites, to reliable authors, philosophers, theologians, etc., even the Vatican itself, TO PROVE THEIR POINTS that the Pope did or said what they report. Your going on and on saying they are false “interpretations” is just plainly ridiculous!

    It is instead extremely clear, not only from the maxim “Error has no rights” but also from the explanations of the Cardinals Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Seper and Ratzinger that ALL interpretations of Magisterial teachings that are contrary to the Deposit of Faith and infallible Dogma are intrinsically wrong and false.

    Those who consult some declarations of the Pope and then think that 2+2+2=47¾ instead of keeping within the strict limits of the Catholicity and Orthodoxy of the Faith are those whose misinterpretations and overinterpretations constitute a Hermeneutic of Rupture.

    To imagine that Amoris Laetitia might somehow “authorise” some sort of ghastly “Eucharistic Adultery” is possible only among those actively desiring such objectively evil Heresy and Blasphemy and among those who schismatically believe that the Apostolic Magisterium could be separate from the Revelation.

    as a voice for all of us

    NOT in my name, kathleen, and it is presumptuous in the extreme to suppose that these men are somehow giving voice to “tradition” as such. Not to mention that it is a proposal that is objectively and materially false, and that it constitutes a schismatic ideology that is NOT Catholic.

    The Remnant do not want a schism either (how could they?)

    Whether they “want” one or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is what their inconsiderate, impertinent, intemperate, and imprudent words and deeds are encouraging.

    Just LOOK at us arguing just for starters kathleen, as a DIRECT result of their actions !!

    Here’s a dose of FACT for you — in his letter : https://www.data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Carta_Francisco_en_respaldo_Criterios.pdf ; the Pope does not even mention the divorced and remarried.

  53. JabbaPapa says:

    the explanations of the Cardinals Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Seper and Ratzinger

    … and Müller.

    BTW, when exactly is his imaginary replacement at the head of the CDF by a Modernist Liberal supposed to be happening, again ?

  54. ginnyfree says:

    Jabba, this is beautiful:

    “To imagine that Amoris Laetitia might somehow “authorise” some sort of ghastly “Eucharistic Adultery” is possible only among those actively desiring such objectively evil Heresy and Blasphemy and among those who schismatically believe that the Apostolic Magisterium could be separate from the Revelation.”

    Said in response to Kathleen attempting to become a voice of a select group of Church members here: “as a voice for all of us.”

    I can testify that she does not speak for me and not for anyone close to me either. I can also see she doesn’t speak for you.

    She will answer at her particular judgment for her own sins, not the Holy Father’s. Her opinion is really going to do her in. It will not excuse her from obedience not one little whit. If she succeeds in separating someone who trusts her judgment from the one, true and only Church by driving a wedge between them and the visible head of our Church, representing Christ Himself as His Vicar on earth she will have a serious problem because her personal sins will not end at her death but will continue to injury the Mystical Body of Christ. This exchange in this thread has removed all doubt that she intends to continue to work to separate church members from the Vicar of Christ on earth and so see to it that they die outside of the only means of salvation for men. I stated that you words are beautiful to me simply because you are a soldier in the fight for Christ and are showing any and all with half a brain that what passes for piety here is tin rather than silver.

    Bravo Jabba! Bravo. Keep fighting the good fight.
    Schismatics 301! I was gonna say 101, but for all the labors you’ve put in, it is at the 300 level. Praise God and pass the ammunition! Hope I get as good at this as you are someday Jabba. I really mean that. You are inspiring.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  55. JabbaPapa says:

    She will answer at her particular judgment for her own sins

    As we all will, and I shall be first in line to answer for my own.

    ginny, please, I have NO intention of condemning nor blaming anyone in here, but only to show that certain ideas and some teachings presenting themselves as “catholic” are actually nothing of the sort.

    I am not pleased to do this, though I do thank you for your compliments, and it is not to drive wedges between these and those that I write all of this, though I recognise that this may be an inevitable consequence, but to point out that the wedges of sectarian and factionalist ideologies need to be seized up and cast into the fire with the rest of the chaff.

  56. mmvc says:

    So when Bishop Schneider calls not only for corrections and clarifications of the conciliar documents but for a whole review in a syllabus of errors and when many other voices of authority (including pope em) lament the ambiguities and problems found in said documents, are they too fomenting schism?

  57. JabbaPapa says:

    So when Bishop Schneider calls not only for corrections and clarifications of the conciliar documents but for a whole review in a syllabus of errors and when many other voices of authority (including pope em) lament the ambiguities and problems found in said documents, are they too fomenting schism?

    Bishop Schneider is of the opinion that a Pope should issue a document correcting erroneous interpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

    This does not constitute schism, no, nor even any sort of schismatic tendency.

    Bishop Schneider : http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/schneider-proposte.htm

    In the hermeneutical uproar of contrasting interpretations and in the confusion of pastoral and liturgical applications, the Council itself united with the Pope appears as the one authentic interpreter of the conciliar texts. One could make an analogy with the confused hermeneutical climate of the first centuries of the Church, provoked by arbitrary biblical and doctrinal interpretations on the part of heterodox groups. In his famous work De praescriptione haereticorum Tertullian was able to set against the heretics of various orientations the fact that only the Church is the legitimate owner of the faith, of the word of God, and of tradition. With that in the disputes on true interpretation, the Church can drive the heretics “a limine fori”. Only the Church can say, according to Tertullian: “Ego sum heres Apostolorum” (Praescr., 37, 3). Speaking analogically, only the supreme Magisterium of the Pope or of a future Ecumenical Council will be able to say: “Ego sum heres Concilii Vaticani II”.

    … There is need for a new Syllabus, this time directed not so much against errors coming from outside the Church, but against errors spread within the Church on the part of those who maintain a thesis of discontinuity and rupture with its doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral application.

    Two groupings that maintain the theory of rupture are evident. One such grouping tries to protestantize the life of the Church doctrinally, liturgically, and pastorally. On the other side are some traditionalist groups that, in the name of tradition, reject the Council, and avoid submission to the supreme living Magisterium of the Church, the visible Head of the Church, submitting for now only to the invisible Head of the Church, waiting for better times.

    You have quoted an Authority who supports the position of the genuine Orthodoxy, against the false “traditionalism” of these so-called “Remnant“.

  58. mmvc says:

    As I understand it the ICKSP, the FSSP, the SSPX, blogs such as 1P5 and Rorate Caeli, all more or less have the same reservations about V2 as The Remnant, and they all enjoy the praise, support and friendship of Bishop Schneider. I very much doubt that he would class them as ‘false traditionalists’.

  59. JabbaPapa says:

    1P5, Rorate Caeli, and the Remnant can all be ignored without prejudice to Catholic Faith.

  60. ginnyfree says:

    MMVC, your list includes a few that the “support and friendship of Bishop Schneider” can only lie in your over active imagination. He is faithful, SSPX is not. To try to say that the good Bishop is in alignment with the SSPX is a huge slander against him. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  61. mmvc says:

    Read this excerpt from an interview with the good bishop very carefully and slowly, dear ginny.
    Then see if you can really accuse me of an ‘over active imagination’ and ‘huge slander’:

    Adelante la Fe: Your Excellence has recently visited the SSPX [seminaries] in the United States and France. We know it was a “discreet” meeting but, can you make an evaluation for us of what you saw and talked with them about? What expectations do you have of a coming reconciliation and which would be the main obstacle for it?

    Mons. Schneider: The Holy See asked me to visit the two [seminaries] of the SSPX in order to conduct a discussion on a specific theological topic with a group of theologians of the SSPX and with His Excellency Bishop Fellay. For me this fact shows that for the Holy See the SSSPX is not a negligible ecclesiastical reality and that it has to be taken seriously. I am keeping a good impression of my visits. I could observe a sound theological, spiritual and human reality in the two [seminaries]. The “sentire cum ecclesia” of the SSPX is shown by the fact that I was received as an envoy of the Holy See with true respect and with cordiality. Furthermore, I was glad to see in both places in the entrance area a photo of Pope Francis, the reigning Pontiff. In the sacristies there were plates with the name of Pope Francis and the local diocesan bishop. I was moved to assist the traditional chant for the Pope (“Oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco…”) during the solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

    To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, meanwhile they should be accepted as they are. This was indeed Archbishop Lefebvre’s petition to the Holy See: “Accept us as we are”.

    I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the “conditio sine qua non”, since it was an assembly with primarily pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do. When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in the Church, which is Vatican II.

    When the SSPX believes, worship and conducts a moral [life] as it was demanded and recognized by the Supreme Magisterium and was observed universally in the Church during a centuries long period and when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books, this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly lose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles.

  62. kathleen says:

    Hey folks – ginnyfree is back on the gin!! Or back on something as she spits her venom my way once more.

    You’ve got it wrong again, ginnyfree. I DID NOT say I, me, myself, was speaking “as a voice for all of us”! How could I, little insignificant me, do that, you eejit? Go back and read it again. (You pander to Jabba, but he knew exactly who I was talking about, as his reply to me indicates.)

    I was saying it was the orthodox Catholic men from The Remnant and CFN who were voicing the concerns of millions of Catholics around the world today. Not me. They are far, far more prepared than I could ever be to gather all the information together, with the appropriate links, and write that excellent Open Letter to the Pope. These men are “the voice” for the Catholics who love their Faith and who are genuinely perturbed by the confusion, abuses and even heretical statements coming from Rome that have gone unchecked these last three and a half years.
    Got it now?

    She will answer at her particular judgment for her own sins, not the Holy Father’s. Her opinion is really going to do her in. ETC…..

    Wow !!! You would just love that, wouldn’t you? Gloatingly hopeful that I, and all those who dare to cross you, will end up roasting in Hell one day. Gives you real kicks, doesn’t it? (Not even Mr John Kehoe, whose continual ‘nasties’ full of snarky moral superiority that now fill our cyber bin, has gone that far!)
    But, ginnyfree, perhaps your evident hatred for your ‘enemies’ might just do you in instead – have you thought of that? – unless you mend your ways of course. For your sake I shall pray that you do – no irony here!

    ——-

    Jabba – I’ve only just looked in after a busy day. I’ll answer you tomorrow. Goodnight.

  63. mmvc says:

    I was wondering what’s got into ginnyfree again, Kathleen…

    Now I know it’s just Mother’s Ruin ;o)

  64. ginnyfree says:

    Ya know what MMVC, I’ve listened to his comments regarding his visit as well as read many times his own words. You’ve twisted a few and provided no link for verification of YOUR version of his comments. For shame. I won’t say you’ve out and out lied about it. Perhaps you are simply passing along the misinformation and twisted version of his words that was passed along to you. The good Bishop does not support the SSPX, nor is he their friend. He hopes that they may be one day reconciled to the Church as we all do, but he did say without their changing their stance on a few things, it would remain impossible. That means he is acknowledging that they are OUTSIDE THE CHURCH and hopes and prays that one day, that will no longer be the problem. I heard him say it. Good luck convincing others he really supports them. Nice try. I know the truth though. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  65. mmvc says:

    Here is one of the links, ginny:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-there-are.html
    A google search will lead you to many more. You will also see that I have neither added, subtracted nor indeed twisted a single word.
    And if you’re still incredulous, why not contact Bishop Schneider himself to verify if the interview is authentic?

  66. mmvc says:

    Oh and here is another excerpt from an interview the good Bishop gave Rorate Caeli earlier this year. This time complete with link – especially for you:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-there-are.html

    PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF ST. PIUS X (SSPX)

    Rorate Caeli: A non-typical situation in the church is the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Why does Your Excellency think that so many Catholics are afraid of the SSPX or anxious about any association with it? From what Your Excellency has seen, what gifts do you think the SSPX can bring to the mainstream Church?

    H.E. Schneider: When someone or something is unimportant and weak, nobody has fear of it. Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.

    When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.

    In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cum ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.

  67. ginnyfree says:

    Like I said before, I’ve listened to it and read it. In fact, I’ve listened to several of his interviews. That’s why I know he is very faithful and does not support the SSPX. To even hear that he supports them is laughable. So, keep dreamin’ but when you’re ready to wake up and smell the coffee………….

    The thing I find most disconcerting is they way some here really don’t love our Holy Father the way any faithful Catholic should. No matter who is sitting in the seat, our love should show. We have been blessed with a long string of Saints holding the Office, and I’ll be the first to say our current Holy Father, Pope Francis isn’t. He may be, as the Office itself may actually sanctify him, but he has a way to go. But to suggest to others not to listen to him at all IS gravely sinful. The level of judgment here of him is astounding. And to use an old phrase, some here most certainly are more Catholic than the Pope. Or at least they think themselves so. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  68. JabbaPapa says:

    ginny, it simply is not fair to characterise the SSPX today as if Summorum Pontificum and all that has happened since — up to and including the granting to them by Pope Francis of faculties to freely ordain men into the priesthood — is without effect on their position in the Church.

    The SSPX validly and licitly provides the Sacrament of Holy Orders — given that they are a Priestly Fraternity, their central purpose in the Church has just been regularised by the Pope, and so it is simply inaccurate (from ANY point of view) to say that the SSPX is “outside” the Church.

  69. mmvc says:

    “The SSPX validly and licitly provides the Sacrament of Holy Orders — given that they are a Priestly Fraternity, their central purpose in the Church has just been regularised by the Pope, and so it is simply inaccurate (from ANY point of view) to say that the SSPX is “outside” the Church.”

    Thank you, Jabba.

    And all that despite their massive reservations about V2. Deo Gratias.

    But then:

    “I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the “conditio sine qua non”, since it was an assembly with primarily pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do. When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in the Church, which is Vatican II. (Bishop Athanasius Schneider)

    So I’m left wondering why this doesn’t apply to The Remnant and all those who share their reservations?

  70. JabbaPapa says:

    I do agree with Bishop Schneider that there is an “over-evaluation and over-estimation” on many sides, but I would not limit it in some binary manner to just the Holy See “versus” the SSPX.

    After all, the so-called false “Spirit of the Council” is exactly that – an extremist “over-evaluation and over-estimation” of the pastoral element over the dogmatic, as if dogma could be overcome and “changed” simply because of some widespread misunderstandings of Vatican II.

    The thing that annoys me the most about the SSPX position is that they insist, quite falsely, that to disagree with individual proposals in the Documents of Vatican II might “justify” rejecting the Council in toto, except that it justifies no such thing — whereas OTOH to disagree with individual proposals in the Documents of Vatican II is in itself, with a few important detail exceptions (the small number of new doctrines and anathemas pronounced by the Council, in particular), usually quite permissible ; and, in the case of the fairly awful Nostra Aetate in particular, given that Pope Benedict XVI in his Ministry as the Roman Pontiff declared it to be in need of some future revisions, because of its factual “Errors”.

    So I’m left wondering why this doesn’t apply to The Remnant and all those who share their reservations?

    That they could be described as entertaining “an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in … Vatican II” ? Yep, certainly.

    Bishop Schneider is of course a lot more polite and circumspect than I am …🙂

  71. mmvc says:

    As so often you are deliberately missing the point.

    And yes you could learn a lot from Bishop Schneider. As could we all. 🙂

  72. JabbaPapa says:

    As so often you are deliberately missing the point

    To so deliberately disagree with a different point that I realise you wanted to make is not to “miss” it.🙂

  73. ginnyfree says:

    Look, I’m only gonna say one little itty bitty thing about the SSPX that for me says it all: they disobey. I’ve heard plenty about how they justify this disobedience and it stinks of sewage no matter what they wrap their garbage up in. They have quite a few changes that they need to make to become canonically regularized and their superiors have refused. They’ve stated their reasons for non-conformity and it is sad. There are probably a few young men among them who are duped by their dazzling rhetoric of deception who have been rightly appalled by the long-term practices of liturgical abuses that have been robbing the Church slowly of all that makes for honest piety. Yes, there is a deep need for that inside the soul who desires to give fitting worship to God in His House. I know. I’ve got that and struggle each time I go to Mass and witness first-hand constant and persistent liturgical abuse. But I’ve learned to practice detachment as St. Theresa of Avila advised as well as a few other Saints, Catherine of Siena being the one. I cannot make anyone want to give due honor to God by their worship nor can I plant the desire for perfection of one’s priestly vocation in the heart of any man. Without that seed, nothing good will grow except a vain pretense of religion which is shallow, hollow and meaningless, just as shallow, hollow as meaningless as the false piety that reeks of sewage in the white washed tombs of those who are in schism in the SSPX and those who support their rebellion. MMCV, I’ve desired to experience the Latin Mass ever since my initial conversion 20 plus years ago. It moves me deeply. But it is not within my grasp. I’ve gone to one Traditional Latin Mass which was just as sacrilegious as the Novus Ordo simply because the priest serving was careless and assumed that by using the Rites, he’d gain the piety it supposedly proves he has. It didn’t. The talk after was all about being superior to the mere mortals who frequent the NO. It was a recruitment site for SSPX and they were all about supporting vocations to the priesthood, as long as it was away from the one true Church of Christ and into their schismatic fold. I was horrified and rightly so. But having taken all that in, I’ve learned that true piety is an affair of the heart and can be practiced anywhere as millions have in all generations regardless of the gravity of the irreverence of those serving the Altar of God. I would love to be able to go to a Latin Mass whether it is in the Novus Ordo, which can be said entirely in Latin BTW at the priest’s discretion who is serving it, or in a more traditional setting as is found in the TLM. Either way, my only concern should be my participation being perfected, not anyone else’s. I know my parts and I pray them as I best can. That’s all I’m called to do, as in a book title by a true genius, “Called To Communion.” DUH. That’s what I’m there for, and anything more is a detraction from God that needs to be avoided. Perfect detachment from all things includes ignoring all the distractions around me and focusing on God alone. So, they could do the Tango on the Altar as part of their worship service and if I am doing what I’m supposed to, it won’t effect me at all because I’ll be focusing on my part and doing all I can to do so as reverently as I can. In fact, they did incorporate Liturgical Dance this past summer as part of the Graduating class’ Mass. It was really a bad thing, young girls flitting around for about 8 minutes on the Altar as if it were a stage. And their outfits weren’t exactly chaste either. I felt really sad for the level of deception their elders used to get them to do this abominable thing. But I had to ignore it so I wouldn’t become sinful by it. THAT is all it about. Avoiding sin instead of using their sins as an excuse to justify my own. Hello? But I digress.
    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  74. mmvc says:

    Ginny I simply refer you back to Jabba’s comment on the matter. None of your musings here will change the REALITY that the SSPX is NOT OUTSIDE the Church. And thanks be to God for that!

  75. ginnyfree says:

    Jabba, there is one huge hole in your understanding: “The SSPX validly and licitly provides the Sacrament of Holy Orders” as you’ve stated at 6:48 above. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Licit is the whole ball of yarn. Without it there is only a long series of sacrileges committed and a huge fraud perpetrated against the faithful, especially when the Sacrament of Penance is performed. Those who do such things should be penalized with a just penalty. I love Confession and to hear of the constant sacrilegious practice of it by those who have no faculties to hear and absolve sins in the name of Christ except in imminent danger of death, well, this one little itty bitty detail proves to me at least that the elimination of sacrilege is really NOT the motive of those who remain outside the Church in the SSPX. Every attempt by a priest to illicitly administer the Sacrament of Penance is a sacrilege just as serious as defilement of the Eucharist. Hello? Conveniently blind to this reality? Take the rosy glasses off and look into it. You’re educated enough to know that without proper faculties, it is simply sacrilege. 1+1+1 still equals three no matter what. Sorry Jabba, but even though I admire the way you defend some things, I know it is for a reason. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  76. ginnyfree says:

    BTW, I’m adding to this discussion a very astute article about all this nonsense from First Things. In it you will find a quote from the Pope, “approach these priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.” Guess what? This can be done without the Pope’s “permission,” by a simple ingredient in that Sacrament, good faith on the part of the penitent. Anyone who knows anything about the Sacraments knows that a priest’s personal sins do not effect the Sacrament except for him.

    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/05/the-pope-and-the-sspx-is-reconciliation-near

    Lack of faculties only causes the sacrilege to fall on the head of the priest. If the penitent is properly disposed for the Sacrament, then he or she does receive a valid Sacrament and is absolved and a when they complete it by giving proper satisfaction in the performance of whatever penance is given, then they have no sin. If however, they are going to a SSPX priest in a spirit of defiance, well then their hearts are far from being properly disposed to receive absolution. Christ is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow and it is His Spirit that animates all the Sacraments. He is as unchanging in them as He is. If the priest is a member of the SSPX he can give valid absolution to anyone properly disposed although he still commits a fraud because he has no faculties still. The Pope didn’t remove this part at all. They have no desire to repent of their madness, he only did what he did to reassure those who seek absolution from these fraudulent ministers pretending that their sacraments are holier than those administered by others. Pope Francis was pretty slick in doing what he did. Mercy and justice are present in his actions. There has been a considerable amount of distress for the faithful who have been ministered to by these schismatics over their confessions. The Pope has sought to relieve that for them. This has not resolved or legitimized the existence of the SSPX. Nice try though. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  77. JabbaPapa says:

    Jabba, there is one huge hole in your understanding: “The SSPX validly and licitly provides the Sacrament of Holy Orders” as you’ve stated at 6:48 above. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

    Yes it is — the Bishops of the SSPX have very recently been granted faculties, by Pope Francis directly I’d guess, to freely ordain men into the Priesthood with no need to seek permission from the local Diocesan Ordinary.

    This very recent change in their situation means that these ordinations are now not only valid, but also licit.

    especially when the Sacrament of Penance is performed

    The priests of the SSPX in this Year of Mercy provide the Sacrament of Penance both validly and licitly, and the Superior of the SSPX has been told in person by Pope Francis that this still temporary provision is to be made permanent.

    Take the rosy glasses off and look into it

    I have no “rosy glasses” — it is an objective fact that the situation of the SSPX has changed during the Pontificates of Benedict XVI and Francis.

  78. JabbaPapa says:

    Lack of faculties only causes the sacrilege to fall on the head of the priest

    There is no such current lack of faculties.

  79. ginnyfree says:

    To be in a state of schism is to be outside the Church. You can be on friendly terms with the Holy Father in a very public way yet still be outside the Church. Not everyone the Holy Father shakes hands with is in the Church obviously.

    Not all those who call out Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom. Hello?

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  80. mmvc says:

    Well if you refuse to face FACTS ginny, then that can’t be helped.
    Hello, goodbye and God bless.

  81. JabbaPapa says:

    Not everyone the Holy Father shakes hands with is in the Church obviously

    Nobody outside the Church is formally granted the Ordinary Episcopal faculty to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders by the Holy Father, no matter how many times he may “shake their hands”.

  82. ginnyfree says:

    Can. 973 The faculty to hear confessions habitually is to be granted in writing.

    So, unless the Pope ALSO gave his “permission” IN WRITING, their faculties are still not licit. Otherwise, it remains as I’ve stated, a comfort to those faithful who have gone to the priests of the SSPX for Confession. So, produce the documents that are required or it is still a fraud.

    God bless.

    Ginnyfree.

  83. JabbaPapa says:

    oh dear me …

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-validates-sspx-confessions-for-year-of-mercy

    The Holy Father concluded, “In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who, during the holy Year of Mercy, approach these priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X to celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

  84. ginnyfree says:

    I read it Jabba. It doesn’t say what you and others claim it does. Like I said, anyone who approaches a priest in good faith can obtain the forgiveness of their sins provided they do so in good faith, even SSPX priests. He isn’t doing anything new nor lifting any ban nor legitimizing anything for them, the priests. He is doing it for the faithful, which the priests of the SSPX cannot claim to themselves as they are all schismatics and heretics, neither of which is copacetic with the term faithful. Yeah. I got that. Next……………………God bless. Ginnyfree.

  85. ginnyfree says:

    Besides that Jabba, cherry picking is a practice I’m too familiar with. What lies before the “in the meantime,” is this: ” I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime,….” http://www.iubilaeummisericordiae.va/content/gdm/en/giubileo/lettera.html

    That is ONCE AGAIN, a Pope restating that these men in the SSPX ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY FATHER AND THE REST OF THE CHURCH, MILITANT, SUFFERING AND TRIUMPHANT. I apologize for all the capital letters, but I get tired of saying over and over and over again to people who like the Protestants, imagine some sort of universal church that knows no boundaries, who try to extend what boundaries there are to include themselves, when their actions and beliefs work to exclude them from the true Church. So, houze that you say? Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. You cannot fake Communion. Where there is none, there is none. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  86. JabbaPapa says:

    Well if you refuse to face FACTS ginny, then that can’t be helped.

    Indeed …

  87. kathleen says:

    [supposedly] free-from-gin @ 16:26 on 27/9

    After that bellicose commenter’s vicious, slanderous attack on me yesterday, she found she couldn’t stop there. So she then turns and spouts more of her vicious slander, this time, and which is of far greater importance, at the faithful priestly fraternity, the SSPX, whom she falsely claims as being OUTSIDE the Holy Catholic Church. An outright lie! (She would probably like to pack them off to Hell with me too for what she terms “driving a wedge” into the Church!).

    [Suposedly] free-from-gin didn’t bother to check her facts or listen to the words of Pope Francis, who called them “real Catholics” and lifted their canonical irregularities last autumn!! (This was much publicised, so then where was she? Drunk on gin, perhaps?)

    At a time when the Church was in great upheaval, in the wake of Vatican II, with the “stripping of the altars” (Eamon Duffy) and the “hurricane of destruction” (Malachi Martin) rushing through and changing the face of the Church, until it was beginning to resemble more and more a Protestant shadow of the beautiful Bride of Christ, it was only a handful of traditional Catholics who saw the danger and felt they had to hold back this evil tide. Among them, and best known, was Archbishop Lefevbre and his followers, later to be called the SSPX. They were maligned, ridiculed, threatened. and finally ostracised. Eventually, witnessing the evil fruits from that so-called “spirit of Vatcan II”, many who had not followed them at first began to look at them with gratitude for preserving the holy Mass of the Ages and the forgotten devotions and practices of the Church. Card. Joseph Ratzinger was one of them, and once he became Pope Benedict, he started the journey to reunite them with the main body of the Church.

    This is all in the past now, DG, and their total reunification appears to be all the nearer… But even in those earliest darkest times of the excommunication of their bishops, no one ever claimed they were in a formal schism.
    (Thank you very much mmvc and Jabba for clarifying all this too.)

    ginnyfree, for someone who once stated she would still “love and follow Pope Francis if he were to strip naked and run through the streets crying out that the Martians had landed” – yes, this is what you claimed, outrageously bizarre as it still sounds – it is odd that you now go in direct contrast to his sincere claim that the members of the priestly fraternity of SSPX are “real Catholics”!
    Calling others out on their “sins” with such amazing arrogance, and then harming the Mystical Body of Christ yourself by your vitriol against some of Her most devout members, sniffs of hypocrisy I’d say.

  88. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 13:13 yesterday

    Forgive my delay in getting back to you as I said last night I would, but I see you’ve been kept busy enough tackling the woman who enjoys sending faithful Catholics to Hell!😉
    In fact as the conversation has taken a turn elsewhere, I’ll only address one or two of your (IMO) more important points.

    To imagine that Amoris Laetitia might somehow “authorise” some sort of ghastly “Eucharistic Adultery” is possible only among those actively desiring such objectively evil Heresy and Blasphemy and among those who schismatically believe that the Apostolic Magisterium could be separate from the Revelation.

    Unfortunately, in reality, those you refer to as “actively desiring such objectively evil Heresy and Blasphemy” to change the doctrine on who may or may not receive the Holy Eucharist is a very large, perverted and determined group! That is exactly what the pretty numerous Kasperites (progressives, modernists and extreme liberals) are making “possible” by the lack of clarity in certain passages of AL. It has been these emboldened heretics who think they can now see a way to manipulate the texts to mean what they want them to mean.
    For that same reason, all over the world orthodox Catholics are now deeply concerned and begging the Pope to come out and tell them that these heretics are wrong, whilst re-writing these shaky passages in AL so that their teaching in line with Catholic doctrine becomes clear, once and for all.

    Please, just tell me why he doesn’t just go ahead and do it? What is stopping him from coming to the cry from his flock? How can the faithful draw any other conclusion than that HE DOESN’T WANT TO CLARIFY THEM, shocking though this would be in truth, and as sinister as this must sound?

    The second group, those who “schismatically believe that the Apostolic Magisterium could be separate from the Revelation” – and yes you’re right of course, it cannot be – I’m not sure who these people are supposed to be. Though (sigh) I expect you mean groups like The Remnant. But traditional Catholics as they are would never hold to this separation in the Church. However, the real teaching body of the Church, the Apostolic Magisterium, is permanent, and not the same as the temporary magisterium of some liberal insiders of the Vatican who are deviously churning out horrors like the recent sex-ed programme today!! They are infiltrated Masonic modernists, promoting a Hermeneutic of Rupture within Christ’s Mystical Body.
    They need to be corrected and disciplined by the firm hand of the Pontiff! (Sigh again). Wishful thinking?

    Me: The Remnant do not want a schism either (how could they?)

    You: Whether they “want” one or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is what their inconsiderate, impertinent, intemperate, and imprudent words and deeds are encouraging.

    Then what, please tell me, are they supposed to do when they see such a bombardment of heresy and abuse being tolerated, and even in some cases promoted, by some in the hierarchy today? Is not keeping silent in the face of pure evil a sin too, if we have tools (one of them surely being the blogosphere) to defend the Truth? Is “instructing the ignorant” (something you excel in, BTW) not a Gospel prerogative too, and something every baptised Catholic is called to obey?

    Just LOOK at us arguing just for starters kathleen, as a DIRECT result of their actions !!

    And this constant “arguing” with you saddens me more than you know.
    But The Remnant are not to blame for the diabolical disorientation in the Church today anymore than anyone else. Men’s salvation is at stake… That places the ‘stakes’ pretty high!

  89. Tom Fisher says:

    Look, I’m only gonna say one little itty bitty thing..

    Indeed

  90. johnhenrycn says:

    Not sure, but I think Ginny is Melungeon. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s only recently that they’ve started speaking out. And so much of what she says is mere exuberance at being listened to.

  91. JabbaPapa says:

    Not sure, but I think Ginny is Melungeon. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s only recently that they’ve started speaking out. And so much of what she says is mere exuberance at being listened to.

    ?????!!!!?????!!??!??

  92. johnhenrycn says:

    I can’t help your ignorance of Appalachia from whence cometh your admirer.

  93. johnhenrycn says:

    Your only admirer.

  94. JabbaPapa says:

    I can’t help your ignorance of Appalachia from whence cometh your admirer

    No, I’m just shocked that you’re trying to belittle someone on the basis of ethnicity.

    Your only admirer

    I can’t help it if you dislike it when your ideologies are disagreed with.

  95. johnhenrycn says:

    “I think Ginny is Melungeon. Nothing wrong with that…” is what I said. Let’s all admit where we come from, as I always do. Now, JP, tell us about your roots. Are they as boring as I suspect?

  96. ginnyfree says:

    Hello JH???? I had no idea what a Melungeon is so I looked it up. Here’s what I found:
    “History and Tidbits
    The term “Melungeon” has generally been applied to a widely distributed group of people associated with the general region of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky in the United States, but generally regarded as particularly concentrated in the general area of Eastern Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, and Northwest North Carolina. References are also made to Melungeon groups in Ohio and Louisiana. Although definitions of what exactly constitute a Melungeon differ, these are a mixed-race people.”

    Racist bigotry. And you’re Christian? Excuse me? I’ve been called quite a few things while here, but I think this one takes the cake. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  97. ginnyfree says:

    Well, if I’ve spoken enough truth the have earned such compliments, then blessed am I for having suffered a little something for the sake of Christ. The truly sad thing is that this is a triple whammy of an insult. Suppose someone of mixed ancestry actually visit this site to grow in their spiritual life and found such ideology tossed about as an insult meant to belittle and begrudge. They won’t be back. Then there is the racist part. Are all persons of mixed ancestry to be used as stereotypes for ignorance, etc.? Why not toss out the “N” word occasionally? If this is what JH considers acceptable to put in a semi-public blog, just imagine the racisms he leaves behind when he uses his delete feature before posting. Really.

    I gotta say it, the folks here really are getting rather nasty. Most certainly not very charitably Christian in their arbitrary name calling and innuendos. Wow.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  98. johnhenrycn says:

    Ginny: Being of mixed ethnicity myself (there being no such thing as “race”) I don’t see your problem with possibly being Melungeon. Be glad I didn’t repeat my previous “Hillbilly” description of you. My sister always gets upset when I use the “N” word – Negro – but that’s what W.E.B. Du Bois called himself and many of his articles and books use that word as well. Ever hear of Du Bois? Get over yourself, dear.

  99. johnhenrycn says:

    If I was from the sub-Sahara, I would call myself a Negro and be proud of it. You are ignorant, Ginny.

  100. johnhenrycn says:

    And now I shall return to watching Season 2 of Indian Summers with all those awful Hindus.

  101. JabbaPapa says:

    Are they as boring as I suspect?

    Thank you for elevating the tone of debate.

  102. JabbaPapa says:

    Be glad I didn’t repeat my previous “Hillbilly” description of youMy sister always gets upset when I use the “N” word – Negro

    ah, I see … so ethnically derogatory vocabulary defines part of your ideology, gotcha

  103. kathleen says:

    Look ginny, if you were not sometimes so very “nasty” yourself, you would not have commenters either trying to defend themselves against your streams of unwarranted insults, or, in the case of JH (I’d wager) teasing you a little. Just take a few minutes to humbly think about this, and then perhaps change your belligerent attitude in future debates. We are all Catholics fighting the good fight for truth (little ‘T’) and the One Truth, and, IMPORTANT, not just each one’s definition of what that Truth should be. For that we have Our Holy Catholic Church to define for us what cannot be disputed.
    The subject of this article is, admittedly, a very contentious one, where the Pope’s fidelity to that Truth he has been chosen to protect is understandably causing concern. But it should be possible to argue with respect for others without using scornful, hurtful vitriolic language.

    I have argued and disagreed many a time with different commenters in discussion threads without it ending in tears (e.g., with Jabba ^ as you can see) without the need for ad hominems or contempt for their opinions, simply by valuing each other as fellow Catholics loved by Christ.

  104. JabbaPapa says:

    simply by valuing each other as fellow Catholics loved by Christ

    Exactly. As Exemplified for All Time in the Lord’s Prayer :

    PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis,
    sanctificetur nomen tuum.
    Adveniat regnum tuum.
    Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.
    Panem nostrum quotidianum/substantialem da nobis hodie,
    et dimitte nobis debita nostra
    sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
    Et ne nos induca in tentationem,
    sed libera nos a malo.

    Amen.

  105. JabbaPapa says:

    … temptationem … pfff … I do not agree with the “tentationem” spelling. “Dimitimus” should probably also only have one t.

  106. ginnyfree says:

    Sancta Michael, Archangele, defende nos in praelio, ut non peramus in tremendo judicio.
    Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes advesae. Vicit leo de tribu Juda, radix David, alleluia alleluia!
    Fiat misericordie tua, Domine, super nos. Quemadmodum speravimus in te.

  107. ginnyfree says:

    Shame there is no Latin spell checker here. Hell, there is no spell checker here at all. YUK!

  108. GC says:

    inducas

  109. JabbaPapa says:

    inducas

    I think it’s wrong.

    I think it’s an actual grammatical error.

    My problem with it is that we have a seeming : ne + subj. .. imperative

    Why not * “Et ne nos inducas in temptationem, sed liberas nos a malo” ? or “Et ne nos induc in temptationem, sed libera nos a malo” ?

    Another problem is that the regular form of the very similar and far more common verb educere in the subjunctive is educes, not *educas — so why not * “Et ne nos induces in temptationem” ?

    buuuut my theory about this is complex, and not necessarily correct.

  110. johnhenrycn says:

    “… my theory about this is complex, and not necessarily correct.”
    J,M & J!
    ___
    Ginny, please don’t get too riled about possibly being Melungeon, which is more geographical than ethnic in nature. In fact, no one’s quite sure where those dusky hued people actually came from. Some say Turkey. Some say Africa. Some even say Portugal. If you’re interested in learning more about your ancient blood lines, head for Sneedville, Tennessee near the Clinch River, turn left at the courthouse and crawl up Newman’s Ridge. Halfway down, as Snake Hollow appears on your left, you’ll reach a narrow gorge by Powell Mountain (beware the steepness and the switchbacks) hard on the Tennessee – Virginia border. The gorge opens into a hidden valley hugging Blackwater Creek, and that’s where you’ll find your ancestral heartland. Home, sweet home.

  111. GC says:

    johnhenry, you are the most shocking tease. And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.

  112. mmvc says:

    Jabba, I barely scraped a ‘C’ in my Latin O’level, (and that only thanks to my infinitely patient and dedicated Latin teacher, Sr Ewelina (RIP)), but I found a couple of sites with prayers in Latin (including the Pater Noster) complete with grammatical analyses:

    http://gmr.sourceforge.net/html/gmr.html
    http://www.leatherheadcatholics.org.uk/LatinMass1.shtml

    From the second link specifically re ‘inducas’:

    The usual Latin word for “not” is non; but the form ne is often used if the verb is subjunctive (see b below).
    We have seen that in lines 2, 3 & 4 we had present subjunctives showing an order: sanctificétur ‘let [it] be sanctified’; advéniat ‘let [it] arrive’; fiat ‘let it happen’. So here we have present subjunctive with the ‘you’ form (2nd person singular); compare indúcis = ‘you lead’, and indúcas = ‘let you lead/ do you lead’. Thus ne … indúcas = ‘let you not lead’ i.e. don’t lead.

    Hope that helps a bit.

  113. mmvc says:

    ‘johnhenry, you are the most shocking tease. And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.’

    If I could upvote that, GC, I would. Several times over :o)

  114. ginnyfree says:

    Wow, you really are impressive JH. You a bit too comfortable slinging insulting remarks. It really is for naught though. I’m not riled in the least. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  115. ginnyfree says:

    So, how many insults will it take before Ginnyfree takes her marbles home? Let’s see, one, two three……………………..um…………….Oh what am I thinking? I mistook this place for Catholic. Ooops. Silly me.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  116. johnhenrycn says:

    Yeah, bless you too.

  117. johnhenrycn says:

    “Is Francis or Benedict the True Pope?”

    “In his short reign, Francis has clearly shown himself to be a danger to the faith and perhaps even the “destroyer” prophesied by St. Francis of Assisi. Whether it is his statement that “there is no Catholic God,” that the souls of those who are not saved will be “annihilated,” or his latest, that “no one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!,” he is sowing untold confusion in the Church and in the minds of the faithful. If the Church condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic for erring on one doctrine, we can only imagine what the future holds for Francis. Considering this danger posed by Francis, what should Catholics do?”

    I have no personal opinion, except to say PF is the pope until another pope (Benedict or a future pope) or an episcopal conference says otherwise; but the article is more grist for the mill, food for thought, etc…

  118. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Francis : Today there is a global war to destroy marriage,” the Pope said during a meeting in Tbilisi with priests, religious, seminarians and lay people active in parish life.

    “Today you do not destroy with weapons, you destroy with ideas,” the Pope said. “It is ideological colonisation that destroys.”

    The only way to defend marriage against the onslaught, he said, is to help couples “make peace as soon as possible, before the day ends, and don’t forget the three words: ‘May I?’ ‘Thank you’ and ‘Forgive me.’”

    “Marriage is the most beautiful thing that God has created,” Pope Francis said. In marriage, man and woman become one flesh, “the image of God.”

    When you divorce one flesh you sully the God’s image,” he said.

  119. JabbaPapa says:

    In his short reign, Francis has clearly shown himself to be a danger to the faith and perhaps even the “destroyer” prophesied by St. Francis of Assisi.

    And so now we’re supposed to listen to the opinions of nutcases who think he’s the antichrist ???

    This diabolical hatred of the Pope that some are happy to spread about is utterly evil.

    I have no personal opinion, except

    … that you’re happy to assist in the propagation of this ghastly anti-catholic propaganda.

  120. ginnyfree says:

    Bravo Jabba! You’ve got it right. An excuse for abuse is found in many of his verbal gaffs. My personal favorite was the one he tossed to the panting press agents on a plane about the nuns in the Congo being told to take contraception in anticipation of being raped by St. Paul VI! That was a really fun time to defend both Popes and I did. Praise the Lord! Go team!
    Those who had already left the Church in their hearts used that particular quibble as the golden goose’s egg of an excuse to leave. And they did.
    And here we are among those who support leaving in one’s heart and also in practice. I’m wondering if we took a poll and asked each person who visits here where the go for Mass, either TLM, NO or SSPX affiliates if we’d get honest answers. It sure would be interesting to know as well as enlightening. I could quit guessing. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  121. Tom Fisher says:

    buuuut my theory about this is complex, and not necessarily correct.

    We prostrate ourselves in gratitude as you cast forth the lotus flowers of humility from the golden throne of unbearable pretension.

  122. johnhenrycn says:

    Jabba (06:40) says – “And so now we’re supposed to listen to the opinions of nutcases…???

    I know you are, but what am I?

    Since I never (or hardly ever) read your comments all the way through, I’ve no right to complain that you obviously didn’t read and digest my link, not even the last two sentences:

    “Therefore, we recognize him as the legitimate Pope, but resist his teachings that depart from Tradition – just as we have done with his recent predecessors. This is what the Popes, Fathers and Doctors teach, and what true Catholics have always done when faced with erring Popes.”

    ___
    Anti-Gin (13:34) says – I’m wondering if we took a poll and asked each person who visits here where they go for Mass, either TLM, NO or SSPX affiliates if we’d get honest answers. It sure would be interesting to know as well as enlightening. I could quit guessing.”

    Why insinuate that “each person who visits here” is less honest than you? And I suggest that you not “quit guessing” as you’ve already done with thinking. Your brain needs activity. Use it or lose it.

  123. John says:

    Ginnyfree@13.34. Paul VI is not yet canonized a saint !

  124. JabbaPapa says:

    Since I never (or hardly ever) read your comments all the way through, I’ve no right to complain that you obviously didn’t read and digest my link

    So you are accusing me of your own behaviour ? Gotcha …

  125. johnhenrycn says:

    Quite right, John Kehoe – Blessed Paul VI has not been canonized. I also question Anti-Gin’s memory, if not her honesty, when she says that nuns in the Congo were told “to take contraception in anticipation of being raped by StPaul VI !” She has lost it.

  126. GC says:

    Very admittedly we’re going off the track here, but I personally think Paul VI was a man of deep sanctity and nobility, whatever else we may say.

    Free and poor, Mother and Teacher, the Church turns herself to all mankind:
    (Libera e povera, Madre e Maestra, la Chiesa si rivolge a tutti gli uomini)

  127. JabbaPapa says:

    mmvc :

    I found a couple of sites with prayers in Latin (including the Pater Noster) complete with grammatical analyses:

    http://gmr.sourceforge.net/html/gmr.html
    http://www.leatherheadcatholics.org.uk/LatinMass1.shtml

    From the second link specifically re ‘inducas’:

    The usual Latin word for “not” is non; but the form ne is often used if the verb is subjunctive (see b below).
    We have seen that in lines 2, 3 & 4 we had present subjunctives showing an order: sanctificétur ‘let [it] be sanctified’; advéniat ‘let [it] arrive’; fiat ‘let it happen’. So here we have present subjunctive with the ‘you’ form (2nd person singular); compare indúcis = ‘you lead’, and indúcas = ‘let you lead/ do you lead’. Thus ne … indúcas = ‘let you not lead’ i.e. don’t lead.

    Hope that helps a bit.

    It does, sort of, but as a case in point, it simply states exactly what I disagree with.

    The “inducas” isn’t actually a subjunctive, technically it’s a negative Imperative form. I think it’s wrong because it’s a Classical construction, whereas the Pater is clearly not a Classical text.

    BTW — I’m hardly the only person in the world to be of this opinion :

    But no, I think I am actually wrong — though I’ve not found a text for it, the original Latin translation used a different construction (in French translation “Ne souffre pas que nous soyons induits en tentation “), so the Vulgate must be seen as correct, and Jerome did try and combine Late Latin constructions with Classical forms as best he could, and he used “inducas“, which is his own translation and is not from the Vetus Latina.

    So yes you did help after all, by giving me enough motivation to search for the truth of the matter with sufficient care for the detail of it.

    — let’s avoid the translation issues BTW, even though they are central to toad’s objections concerning proper interpretation of that verse, because they are far more problematic and would be even more boring than this …🙂

  128. johnhenrycn says:

    “…even more boring than this…”

    You’re kidding, right? That was the most gut wrenching cliff hanger of a comment I’ve ever read – especially the part where you say : “But no, I think I am actually wrong…”. I was, like, totally, totally gobsmacked when I read that. Keep up the good work!!

  129. ginnyfree says:

    Good Lord, JH. Can you not say anything positive about anyone anymore? Really. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  130. johnhenrycn says:

    There is not one regular commenter on this blog who I do not like. Lighten up and learn how to roll with the punches.

    Oh yeah – God bless you too.

  131. Toad says:

    Fie, Ginless Wonder -JH regularly says positive things about me.
    But then, I encourage it.

    God bless us all. (Says Tiny Toad.)

  132. JabbaPapa says:

    The French Liberals at Le Monde, which is BTW liberal-‘c’atholic-owned, have made today’s cover story of the internet version an all-out assault on the Pope, because he dared to criticise the “dogma” of gender theory — they’re claiming there’s no such thing as gender theory, because “gender” is “fact”.

    Pick your enemies wisely in this Spiritual Warfare, and shun “friends” who spend their time passing ammunition to the true enemies of the Church.

  133. johnhenrycn says:

    “Pick your enemies wisely in this Spiritual Warfare…”, says JabbaPapa

    A salutary, albeit slightly clichéd, admonition. Still, I take it seriously – so much so that I’ve ordered the hard copy special edition of The Remnant 3 part Open Letter to Pope Francis, which I look forward to or dread (not sure) reading a year or two down the road, when the impact of this papacy may be clearer than it now is – what with all the emotions and doubts that have been stirred up.

    But His Holiness is only part of the problem (in the sense of a riddle): what about all the obviously very poor if not absolutely atrocious bishops who pretend to be our shepherds? Do you and Anti-Gin say we should be as obsequious to them as the two of you say we should be to him?

  134. JabbaPapa says:

    Do you and Anti-Gin say we should be as obsequious to them as the two of you say we should be to him?

    oh just STOP with this RUBBISH, I’m personally asking people to sop spreading OUTRIGHT FALSEHOODS and LIES that are damaging to the Church

  135. ginnyfree says:

    Obsequious? Yeah. Okie dokie. Exaggerations and insults. Can you really add anything intelligent to this discussion? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  136. johnhenrycn says:

    So neither member of your dwarf tag team wrestlers choose to answer my question about criticizing other members of the episcopacy underneath the Bishop of Rome, as PF chooses to be called?

    Anti-Gin: you do realize, I hope, that Okie Dokie was Pee-wee Herman’s Japanese pen pal.

  137. kathleen says:

    JH @ 17:55

    But His Holiness is only part of the problem (in the sense of a riddle): what about all the obviously very poor if not absolutely atrocious bishops who pretend to be our shepherds? Do you and Anti-Gin say we should be as obsequious to them as the two of you say we should be to him?

    Well said, JH! It’s what I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out over and again when arguing with those who blindly defend Pope Francis for the sole reason that he is the Pope and (they swear) is therefore above criticism, even if that sometimes means going against Church teaching! (Look at today’s post as a perfect example of how some of Francis’ words and actions are clearly impossible to defend for any true Catholic!)

    For then also, what about all those “absolutely atrocious bishops” indeed, many of whom have been hand-picked by Francis and are his pampered ‘blue-eyed boys’? Is it okay to criticism them (like Michael Voris does) but then adamantly claim that the Pope cannot be touched? What if we get another liberal Pope after Francis (May God forbid) – one of those great pals of Francis’ among the cardinals with the same mind set as his – and yet one whom they have been constantly slamming? Now that would really put them in a sticky situation! IOW, how would they be able to justify their past hammering of Card. XYZ, if he were to be elected to the Chair of Peter at the next Conclave?

    No one, not even the Pope, is above criticism. We are all fallible human beings. If and when a pope commits errors and contradicts what Our Lord Jesus Christ has imparted to His Church, he should be called out for it and forced to recant, first by his cardinals, bishops and other members of the hierarchy, and if they continue to remain silent, then if deemed necessary, the faithful among the laity should raise their voices in respectful protest for the good of the whole Church. Letting error go unchecked is what would be most “damaging to the Church”. It has happened before in the history of the Church Militant that the ‘smallest and weakest’ have put the powerful to rights, enabling Her to overcome sin and flaws from among the representatives of the Apostles, and thus grow in strength and holiness.

  138. johnhenrycn says:

    On two occasions I’ve asked Michael Voris to comment on the recent (September 5th) letter sent by Pope Francis to the Argentine Bishops Conference concerning the correct interpretation of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but Michael and his team are making shy. He says he is consulting with the top canon lawyer “in the world” about it and is awaiting his opinion.

  139. JabbaPapa says:

    dwarf tag team wrestlers

    You’re just getting weirder and weirder …

    A right to occasionally criticise does not constitute a requirement to write nothing but slanders.

  140. JabbaPapa says:

    those who blindly defend Pope Francis for the sole reason that he is the Pope and (they swear) is therefore above criticism

    What is this RUBBISH ?

    Letting error go unchecked is what would be most “damaging to the Church”

    And yet I am criticised when I point out that this site has been publishing a hefty volume of seemingly non-stop slanders ? The publication of unjust attacks against the Roman Pontiff is “damaging to the Church”, as is the factionalism and the sectarianism and the quasi-schism of those who relish these attacks the most — whether they may be screaming neo-pelagian liberals who hate the Pope for not going along with their “gender” ideology and their gross heresies, or pharisaic ultra-traddies accusing him of being some sort of antichrist deserving of hatred and loathing which must be shouted out loud on as many websites as humanly possible.

  141. ginnyfree says:

    I’m just wondering where the line is between mere words and an actual sacrilege against the person of the Pope. Canon 1370.1 got stretched a bit by Archbishop Fisichella a few months back. He meant well I think, but the real Canon that he could have cited is below:

    Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

    I sincerely think this Canon applies here and elsewhere. Provoking subjects to disobedience is the exact thing much of this “criticism” is meant to accomplish and it is this intent that makes it a pernicious evil. Lambs among wolves………………….wolves in sheep’s clothing…………….obedience unto death is the example of our Blessed Lord.
    Jabba is very right in most regards on this issue. Every action and word of the Holy Father is often scrutinized by some individuals for error grave enough to incite revolt. Unfortunately no sins committed by the Holy Father justify the sinful responses of anyone. I could say more, but it really is unnecessary in light of the above Canon. Cease and desist. The intent is obvious. No one is fooled into thinking otherwise. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  142. kathleen says:

    What is this RUBBISH ?

    It’s what Michael Voris says, Jabba. And all those who say the Pope is above criticism.😉

    The publication of unjust attacks against the Roman Pontiff is “damaging to the Church”

    Yes, agreed. “Unjust attacks” or spiteful, disrespectful name calling would indeed be “damaging to the Church”. But calling out a truthful error of the Pontiff is neither of these things that you call “slanders”.
    And it is what we have been doing on CP&S.

    They are a legitimate defence of Truth by the Church’s members. Nothing more.
    Or would you prefer we walk around like brainwashed robots with no knowledge of our Faith and capacity to decide what of right and wrong?

  143. mmvc says:

    Thank you, for the above Kathleen. It’s wearying to have to point the same thing out again and again. I would just add that we often mention the need for prayer and sacrifice for the pope which doesn’t square with the many accusations of hatred, slander, incitement to rebellion and schism etc, etc, that some commenters regularly throw around here.

  144. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s what Michael Voris says, Jabba. And all those who say the Pope is above criticism.

    So you’re accusing Voris of “blindness”, and generally that defending the Pope is an effect of “blindness”, on the false basis that the “sole” reason that one could have for “blindly” defending the Roman Pontiff is that he’s the Pope ?

    That is just completely ludicrous, given that the reason why I am attacking these ghastly accusations is that I I completely reject them as having no meaningful basis in reality.

    You do hit on an interesting point though, where CP&S has been slipping into behaviour that is contrary to the principles Canon Law, as well as Catholic Doctrine and Discipline concerning the proper relationship between the Laity and the Roman Pontiff.

    https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

    The Special Danger of Ultra-Traditionalist Movements

    There is within the Church today a special danger for those who, often for seemingly legitimate reasons (abuses of the liturgy, the open promotion of heresy even by clergy, and similar causes), have sought refuge in traditionalist movements on the margins of the Church. These groups, distinguishable from those who love the Tridentine tradition of the Mass and sacraments and who celebrate them in Communion with the Pope, go their own way outside of the laws of the Church. They typically rationalize their disobedience by attacking the Second Vatican Council, the current liturgical rites, ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and often Pope John Paul II personally, never distinguishing between teaching and law on the one hand, and the abuse of it by dissenters and the disobedient on the other.

    These groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X, of Pius V, the “We Resist You to Your Face” movement, Br. Dimond and Holy Family Monastery, make ready use of scandals to gain support among the unwary, who, discouraged by their local situation, may think they are joining a more perfect orthodoxy and a more loyal remnant of Catholics. Thankfully such motives may excuse the average person who takes comfort in such groups, at least initially, though as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches to take scandal in other’s sins is istself sinful. However, there is a great danger that starting from the material schism of refusing submission to the Pope, that all these groups have in common, the Catholic cannot long maintain the schizophrenic position of saying they are being submissive to the Pope while disobeying him. At some point they must choose and formally adhere to the schism of the group. In some cases the group identity depends on some formal repudiation of the “Novus Ordo” Church, very effectively hastening the spiritual demise of the lay adherent.

    This article quotes Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam — I’ll quote it myself :

    Boniface, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God.
    For perpetual remembrance.

    1. Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to hold that there is One Holy Catholic and truly Apostolic Church. And this we firmly believe and simply confess: outside of Her, there is neither salvation, nor the remission of sins, just as the Bridegroom in the Canticles proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. One is her mother; elect is she who bore her.” [Canticles 6:8]. And this represents the one mystical body, whose head is Christ, and truly God [is the head] of Christ. [1 Corinthians 11:3] In Her, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. [Ephesians 4:5] For certainly, in the time of the Flood, the ark of Noah was one, prefiguring the one Church. And She, having been completed by [the measure of] one cubit, [Genesis 6:16] had one pilot and helmsman, that is, Noah. And outside of Her, everything standing upon the land, as we read, had been destroyed.

    2. Thus, we venerate Her as the only one, just as the Lord said by the prophet: “O God, rescue my soul from the spear, and my only one from the hand of the dog.” [Psalm 21:21] But he prayed for the soul, that is, for his very self, head and body together. And this body, which he named as the only one, is certainly the Church, because of the Bridegroom, the Faith, the Sacraments, and the love of the Church, united. She is that seamless tunic of the Lord which was not torn, [John 19:23-24] but was distributed by lot.

    3. And so, the one and only Church is one body, one head, (not two heads like a monster), Christ certainly, and the vicar of Christ, [who is ] Peter and the successor of Peter. For the Lord said to Peter himself, “Feed my sheep.” [John 21:17] He said “my” generally, not solely of these or of those. By this, it is understood that all [universas] were committed to him. Therefore, if either the Greeks or others declare themselves not to be committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ, just as the Lord says in John, “there is one sheepfold, and only one shepherd.” [John 10:16]

    4. We are instructed in the Gospel sayings that in Her and within Her power, there are two swords, specifically, the spiritual and the temporal. For the Apostles say, “Behold, there are two swords here,” that is, in the Church. But when the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not respond, “it is too much,” but “it is sufficient.” [Luke 22:38] Certainly, whoever denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, misunderstands the word of the Lord, saying: “Put your sword into its sheath.” [Matthew 26:52] Therefore, both are in the power of the Church, namely, the spiritual sword and the material. But indeed, the latter is to be exercised on behalf of the Church; and truly, the former is to be exercised by the Church. The former is of the priest; the latter is by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

    St. Bernard (De Consideratione, Lib. iv. c. 3) writes:
    “And both therefore, are of the Church, specifically, both the spiritual sword and the material. But indeed, the latter is to be exercised on behalf of the Church; and truly the former is to be exercised by the Church; the former is of the priest, the latter is by the hand of the soldier, but truly at the will of the priest and the order of the emperor.”

    5. Now one sword ought to be under the other sword, and so the temporal authority is to be subject to the spiritual authority. For though the Apostle said: “there is no authority except from God and those who have been ordained by God,” [Romans 13:1] still they would not have been ordained unless one sword were under the other sword. And so what is inferior should be led forward by another, to what is highest. For, according to blessed Dionysius, it is a law of divine power that what is lowest is to be led forward by what is intermediate, to what is highest.

    6. Therefore, it is not in accord with the order of the universe that all things should be absolutely equal, but rather the lowest through the intermediate, and the lower through the higher, in order. And so, to whatever extent the spiritual power excels beyond the worldly, in both dignity and rank, we must, to the same extent, clearly admit that the spiritual surpasses the temporal. And this, nevertheless, we distinguish with clear eyes from the gift of tithes, and from benediction and sanctification, by the reception of the authority itself, and by the government of the things themselves. For truth is the witness that the spiritual authority holds [the ability] to establish the earthly authority, and to judge if it might not have been good. And this, concerning the Church and the authority of the Church, the prophecy of Jeremiah verifies: “Behold, today I have appointed you over nations and kingdoms” [Jeremiah 1:10] and the rest that follows.

    7. Therefore, if the earthly power goes astray, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual power goes astray, [it will be judged] by its superior; and truly, if the highest [power] goes astray, it will not be able to be judged by man, but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.” [1 Corinthians 2:15]

    8. But this authority, even though it may be given to a man, and may be exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine [power], having been given by the divine mouth [of Christ] to Peter, and to him as well as to his successors, by [Christ] Himself, [that is, to him] whom He had disclosed to be the firm rock, just as the Lord said to Peter himself: “Whatever you shall bind,” [Matthew 16:19] etc. Therefore, whoever resists this authority, such as it has been ordain by God, resists the ordination of God. [Romans 13:2] Otherwise, he would be proposing two principles to exist, as did Manichaeus, and this we judge to be false and heretical. For Moses testified that God created heaven and earth, not in the beginnings, but “in the beginning.” [Genesis 1:1]

    9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.

    Given at the Lateran,
    18 November 1302,
    in year eight of our pontificate.

    Not only is it NOT TRUE that Catholics have “rights” of full freedom to attack, criticise, or otherwise belittle the Roman Pontiff howsoever often they may decide in their own little heads to do so, but we are in FACT required to provide willful submission of the intellect to his teaching Ministry — and this does NOT only concern his officially Magisterial teachings, but it even extends to his most off-the-cuff airborne remarks.

    This does NOT mean “blindness” nor anything else so caricaturally stupid — it means that all Catholics are bound by our duty of obedience and submission to the visible Head of the Catholic Church to consider those teachings not from a spirit of rejection, or malice, or in a hermeneutic of rupture, or as if he were less Catholic than we, or as if some fantastically tortured reinterpretations of his words could accurately twist them about into the opposite of Church Dogma, or any other such strategies of intellectual vilification of the Holy Catholic Magisterium as it is present spiritually in the person of the Pope, but in a spirit of goodwill, honesty, humility, thoughtfulness, hope, faith, and charity.

    These deeply immoral attempts by those fools at The Remnant and others to undermine not just the present Pope but during their pontificates every single Pope since Paul VI (with the possible exception of John Paul I, though I doubt it), with accusations of heresy, of teaching things that must be disobeyed, and all manner of utterly ghastly, exaggerated, and sometimes frankly diabolical calls for dissidence and division among the Faithful who constitute the very Catholic Unity that men and women such as these are attempting to destroy in their encouragement of open rebellion, schismatic factionalism, and hateful scorn against Faithful Catholics whose only “crime” against this so-called “Remnant” is to reject the pharisaic ideologies that they cleave to and misrepresent as being somehow “traditional” or “catholic”, when in fact they are simply their own invention.

    Schism can take many forms, although it is formally defined as such : “schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [Code of Canon Law c.751]

    More profoundly, it is the constitution of any group of people who set themselves up, ideologically and doctrinally, as in opposition to and separation from the Church as a whole, exactly as these so-called “Remnant” have done, and to actively preach teach or otherwise disseminate these ideologies among the Faithful, on the false presumption that they are “right” and others “wrong”, which is directly contrary to the essential nature of the Catholicity as such – καθολικός, “of/for the whole”.

    These so-called “Remnant” have no monopoly whatsoever of correctly orthodox Catholicity, and by claiming that they do and that they can “legitimately” publish never-ending criticism of the Roman Pontiff (who actually DOES have the Magisterial Authority), they are engaging in actions that are objectively schismatic and objectively contrary to Catholicism as such.

  145. JabbaPapa says:

    walk around like brainwashed robots with no knowledge of our Faith and capacity to decide what of right and wrong

    What an utterly ludicrous characterisation.

  146. JabbaPapa says:

    a truthful error of the Pontiff

    It is false to characterise these accusations as “truthful”, given that they are entirely fabricated out of personal interpretations, second-guessing, and extremist ideologies.

  147. geoffkiernan says:

    Kathleen: you fight a lone hand for the Church. Are there any out there that can assist her? I am surprised there are apparently so few of you. God Bless and never become disheartened… I am perhaps slow of wit and lack the fire in the belly…. No I still have the fire in the belly and love for the Church but lack the ability to defend Her verbally. I pray for those that have what it takes but lack the courage. Sadly some simply like the sound of there own keyboard and who are given to erudition. Their concern is not for the Bride of Christ but their own puffed up ego

  148. mmvc says:

    You’ve truly surpassed yourself here, Jabba. In terms of quantity if not of quality ;o)

    It is false to characterise these accusations as “truthful”, given that they are entirely fabricated out of personal interpretations, second-guessing, and extremist ideologies.

    We’re going round and round in circles now, aren’t we? So if everything in this Liber is entirely fabricated, do you consider its supporters from the SSPX, the ICKSP, the FSSP, as well as orthodox Catholic theologians, philosophers and Canon lawyers and countless clergy and lay men and women many of whom – dare I suggest it? – know the Faith even better than you do (Have I written this before or is it a case of déjà-vu?) to be ‘inventors’ or followers of inventions and fabrications? Do you really believe that their grievances have no foundation whatsoever and that they actually relish feeling rudderless in the barque of Peter as they are hit by wave after wave of ambiguity, heterodoxy and insult? Do you really believe that people, who would give their very lives for the Church and who are enduring anguish and suffering as a result of Her current Passion and Crucifixion are ‘engaging in actions that are objectively schismatic and objectively contrary to Catholicism as such’?

    Do you remember Mario Palmaro (RIP)?
    Well, here’s something beautiful he wrote after Pope Francis called the terminally ill Catholic writer:

    From LifeSiteNews:

    According to Palmaro, the phone call began with the pope expressing his closeness and concern for Palmaro who is dying of cancer.

    “Pope Francis told me that he was very close to me, having learned of my health condition, of my grave illness, and I clearly noticed his deep empathy, the attention for a person as such, beyond ideas and opinions, while I live through a time of trial and suffering,” related Palmaro.

    “I was astonished, amazed, above all moved: for me, as a Catholic, that which I was experiencing was one of the most beautiful experiences in my life. But I felt the duty to remind the Pope that I, together with Gnocchi, had expressed specific criticisms regarding his work, while I renewed my total fidelity [to him] as a son of the Church,” he added. “The Pope almost did not let me finish the sentence, saying that he had understood that those criticisms had been made with love, and how important it had been for him to receive them.”

    “[These words] comforted me greatly,” he said.

    Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant newspaper, one of the most prominent traditional Catholic institutions in the United States, told LifeSiteNews that he was also comforted by news of the pope’s phone call, and other recent papal actions which came to light this week.

    The Palmaro incident he said, “speaks to the need for us to make our voices heard,” adding that it shows that “attempts by some Catholics trying to silence trads was really wrong headed.”

    In the immortal words of ginny, ’nuff said.

  149. Brother Burrito says:

    Jabba 10:24 on 5th October 2016:

    WELL SAID!

  150. Brother Burrito says:

    MMVC,

    There is a necessary dialogue going on. Things are working out. This is how Salvation history works, and we are all a part of it.

    Dialogue ceases when either side decapitates (silences or refuses to listen to) the other. This is schism. God forbid it!

  151. mmvc says:

    Thanks for this, BB. I’ll plod on then – time and energy permitting. Most of all through prayer as I lack the stamina and knowledge of the likes of our dear Kathleen!

    I hope and pray that you will find a voice too, geoffkiernan. The fire and love in you will give you the words.

  152. Brother Burrito says:

    Plod on, plod on (but) with majesty ;)…..

  153. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m grateful to Kathleen (and/or mmvc?) for publishing The Remnant letter to PF on CP&S. I would not have seen it otherwise. I believe The Remnant people are seriously orthodox, seriously well informed and seriously faithful, and that’s all I intend to say on this subject. Jabbs is quite welcome to have the last word, which he’ll insist upon anyway and which I’ll ignore anyway.

  154. JabbaPapa says:

    the SSPX, the ICKSP, the FSSP, as well as orthodox Catholic theologians, philosophers and Canon lawyers and countless clergy and lay men and women

    Where, exactly, have I posted the sort of blanket accusations against these people that you seem to be suggesting ?

  155. mmvc says:

    Jabba, given that a great many faithful Catholics’ sympathies lie with The Remnant and the expression of their concerns in the three-part Liber (some of whom have been moved to sign multiple petitions to the pope, even at the risk of losing their positions in broadcasting, academia, parishes etc), I feel that you cannot level such accusations at one and not the other. I’m sure that The Remnant gave expression to that which many faithful and suffering souls were seriously and justifiably troubled by already. And like JH above, they are grateful that someone took the time and trouble to articulate these numerous concerns…and that others dared to highlight them.

  156. Toad says:

    “Dialogue ceases when either side decapitates (silences or refuses to listen to) the other. This is schism. God forbid it!”

    That’s presumably why Toad is never moderated or censored – by Burro, or anyone else.
    Comforting news.

    Isn’t Pope Francis a nice man?
    Such, sensible, down-to-earth, views on religion.
    A real breath of fresh air.

  157. kathleen says:

    Dearest Maryla (mmvc) – it is you, not I, who expresses so beautifully and with such great sensitivity the heart-wrenching concerns of millions of Catholics who see their Glorious Faith undermined on so many fronts in the Church today in your responses to those who accuse us of siding with ‘schismatics’. (“Schismatics”? Only those wanting to start up their own church are schismatics.) And it is this derogatory term that seems to be bandied about with quite amazing versatility in these discussions!
    Are we, our JH, faithful Geoff, and all other concerned Catholics who dare to point out the inconsistencies in certain papal pronouncements also to be branded as “schismatics”? But we have no intention of disobeying what the Catholic Church has always upheld as doctrinal teaching and Catholic traditions! Are their hearts so hardened that they cannot see that we have no hate in our own hearts for the Pope (or anyone in fact) but only desire error be checked, and ambiguities clarified.

    What saddens most of us, of course, is that other presumably ‘good’ Catholics appear either not to understand our worries, and attack us for even voicing such a thing as an error coming from the Pope. Although, as you have repeated so many times, these must only urge us onto a greater fervour in praying and offering sacrifices for him.

  158. JabbaPapa says:

    I feel that you cannot level such accusations at one and not the other

    Are you not just expecting me to adopt the very “us and them” notions that I’ve been attacking as fostering schism ?

    I refuse to submit to this false notion of some sort of “remnant” “catholic” factionalism, sorry — it is quite possible, contrary to your suggestions, to attack these so-called “Remnant” without attacking others.

  159. JabbaPapa says:

    And BTW & FYI — the SSPX has excluded or otherwise reprimanded several priests for taking the sort of line that these so-called “Remnant” are pushing, including the ghastly Williamson ; and the ICKSP and the FSSP split from the Fraternity over precisely this question of intellectual submission to the Roman Pontiff.

    You simply cannot realistically claim that they are all in one basket regarding these issues.

  160. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 10:24

    So you’re accusing Voris of “blindness”

    Yes I am, on that point I explained he states – which is that “the Pope is above criticism”. I think he is wrong there, and so do most faithful Catholics.
    I believe Michael Voris says a lot of very good stuff; he defends the Faith with courage and calls out wayward bishops on many heresies, abuses and omissions. But his refusal to mention even the most obvious mistake, error or contradiction coming from the Pope himself is just plain stupid. A criticism of an erroneous word or deed is not necessarily a criticism of the man, and most certainly not of the Papacy.

    Your EWTN cut and paste was written by the Catholic (some would say neo-Catholic) apologist, Colin Donovan. He has no special authority in the Church, though you quote his article as though his opinions were Church teaching. He clearly has a bone to pick with the SSPX.

    Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctam that you then go on to cut and paste says plenty on the Pope being the faithful head of the Church. It would be interesting to know what Boniface would have had to say about a Pope who, in his non-infallible statements, sometimes contradicts what all his predecessors have preached! Hopefully Pope Francis, and the liberal bishops he favours, will re-read and absorb this encyclical too! Especially as in no.1 it states:
    “Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to hold that there is One Holy Catholic and truly Apostolic Church. And this we firmly believe and simply confess: outside of Her [the Church], there is neither salvation, nor the remission of sins,…”
    Oops! Pope Francis has declared to some outside the Church that there is no need to become a Catholic in order to be saved!!! Plenty of the bishops who are his special buddies are of that un-Catholic opinion too, it appears!

    It is false to characterise these accusations as “truthful”, given that they are entirely fabricated out of personal interpretations, second-guessing, and extremist ideologies.

    ?????

    Now that is really an “utterly ludicrous characterisation” of the accusations faithful Catholics have respectfully put forward in their appeals to the Holy Father, pleading with him to rectify them.

  161. JabbaPapa says:

    though you quote his article as though his opinions were Church teaching

    ?????

    No I don’t.

    Pope Francis has declared to some outside the Church that there is no need to become a Catholic in order to be saved

    No he hasn’t, he has said, in accordance with the teaching of the Church dating back to Antiquity, that salvation is possible for some who are outside the visible Church.

    That this Dogma can be understood and interpreted in several different ways means that it can be expressed in various ways, including in some that individuals might disagree with each other about.

    But Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Dogma that was created to denounce an early Heresy claiming that each religion had its own separate heaven and separate salvation. The Church in the Dogma is the Church Triumphant, the Church of the Christ in Heaven — there is no salvation elsewhere than in the Heaven of the Lord and in His Church.

  162. JabbaPapa says:

    (some would say neo-Catholic)

    More factionalism ?

    /sigh … /

  163. JabbaPapa says:

    BTW there’s another huge wave of this business incoming, and another document for the so-called “Remnant” to mistranslate and willfully misinterpret, as the Vicar of Rome, Cardinal Vallini, has just made available the document for practical application of Amoris Laetitia for that Diocese.

  164. kathleen says:

    Jabba,

    Pope Francis has definitely stated in conversations to some non-Catholics that they are fine as they are and do not need to convert to Catholicism! He, Christ’s Vicar on Earth, has made this astounding, erroneous statement on more than one occasion!
    Our Lord’s commission to the Church before His Ascension into Heaven was to “go and teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”. Therefore those who preach otherwise disobey Christ’s last parting commandment!

    I’m sorry, I am not at home (I’m staying with family in England) and cannot look it up at present, but you, who presumably spends much time on the computer, could find out the when and where PF said this if you really do not know it already – something I rather doubt!

    “Neo-Catholic” is a term I don’t fully understand, which is why I cannot say myself whether Colin Donovan is truly one or not; presumably it is a description of a typical post-V2 Catholic, steeped in ecumenism. Admittedly, putting people into categories (something we all do whether we mean to or not – you do it too) is not the best way to go about things, but there clearly are some notable differences among us.
    To be an orthodox believer in all the teachings and traditions of the Church is the only way to be Catholic, IMO.

  165. mmvc says:

    I refuse to submit to this false notion of some sort of “remnant” “catholic” factionalism, sorry — it is quite possible, contrary to your suggestions, to attack these so-called “Remnant” without attacking others.

    So the large numbers of subscribers to The Remnant and the many commenters on their site who have expressed deep gratitude to Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara and John Vennari for articulating exactly what they themselves have been thinking about this pontificate and its disastrous effects on the Church, are somehow immune to your attacks. Well, let’s be thankful for small mercies!

    And btw, I know for a fact that members of the traditional priestly fraternities have been and continue to be very concerned too. I repeat, that apart from any personal acquaintances, I have heard of and read about countless faithful Catholics in this country and abroad who have shared their serious concerns privately or publicly or both….and this even before The Remnant’s ‘Liber’ appeared on the scene. Some have risked their positions, either in the Church or the workplace by speaking out or by signing a petition or declaration, whilst others have chosen to keep their heads down and remain in silent anguish. Others still have endured mockery from liberals who feel emboldened by the pontiff’s ambiguities, errors and insults. Where you see hatred, schadenfreude, wilful mistranslation and misinterpretation, rebellion, excitement, incitement to schism, sacrilege etc., I see desire to defend Catholic Truth out of love for the Mystical Body of Christ as well as sadness and suffering, prayer and sacrifice.

  166. mmvc says:

    Are you not just expecting me to adopt the very “us and them” notions that I’ve been attacking as fostering schism ?

    Utter nonsense, I’m afraid.

  167. Roger says:

    Pope Francis at Rome synagogue: God’s covenant with Jews ‘irrevocable’ January 17, 2016. This is Heretical.

    The Mosaic (Old) Covenant was made void by Christ!
    “..
    The doctrine of the supresession of the Old Testament by the New is a universal and perpetual doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith. The solemn Profession of Faith of the Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, says the following:
    “The sacrosanct Roman Church … firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; … All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
    ..”

  168. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Francis has definitely stated in conversations to some non-Catholics that they are fine as they are and do not need to convert to Catholicism! He, Christ’s Vicar on Earth, has made this astounding, erroneous statement on more than one occasion!

    As far as I know, this comes from :

    1) statements alleged to have been made in semi-fictional “interviews” to that journalist Scalfari, who cannot be trusted at all in this matter, as it is notorious that the man has invented several contents of papal interviews out of his own head — the Pope BTW seems to have finally taken his toys away, and I really wish those interviews had never occurred.

    2) some comments, misinterpreted, concerning the Jews — but misinterpreted very understandably, because this is a highly complex question involving the One Covenant and its relationship with the Jews, the Biblical Prophecy that the full Conversion of the Jews is in the future, and the Prophetic Vision in Apocalypse/Revelation of Jews standing in Salvation with the Christians before the Throne of the Lord, and etc etc. More theologically, the so-called “Old Covenant” cannot be accurately described as having been cancelled, because there is only one Covenant between the Lord and His People. It was transformed into a so-called “New Covenant” in and through the Christ, but just for starters, the Ancient Hebrew Prophets, and Fathers, and Saints are saved in the Covenant, through Christ — because Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The theological point that following the so-called “Old Covenant” can be a pathway to Salvation in Christ, as it indeed was for those Ancient Hebrew Prophets, and Fathers, and Saints, cannot be summarily discarded as “heresy”.

    3) some comments concerning non-Catholic Christians, most especially the Orthodox, that frankly have been exaggerated.

    None of these things can alter the fact that the Dogma of the Holy Church declares that some who are outside the visible Church will be granted Salvation by the Lord.

    The Dogma can be interpreted in several legitimate ways, some of which could even contradict each other (the Modernist notion of a “reasonable hope that all men are saved” is OTOH quite clearly NOT legitimate) — so I’m hardly desirous of attacking your own (legitimate) position on this imponderable (for it is only to the Lord to truly say who shall and who shall not be saved, and not to any of us, because this knowledge has been only partially provided to us in the Revelation).

    Salvation is anyway only ever possible through Christ, and it is incorrect to think that the Pope’s comments regarding Salvation have ever attempted to deny this.

    To be an orthodox believer in all the teachings and traditions of the Church is the only way to be Catholic, IMO.

    Absolutely, though this is easier said than done !!!

  169. JabbaPapa says:

    bah formatting grrrr

  170. Roger says:

    I am sorry Jabba.
    You Faith and integrity is beyond question.

    What I think we are seeing is a Confusion of tongues (Babel).

    Personally I was horrified with the publishing of that list of Masons in the Curia in 1960’s. Masonry is insidious, its ideas flirting with the Mind and sentiments.
    There is invincible ignorance for souls who do not know the Faith for whatever reason, these we leave to God and pray for. We do not join them in their error.
    Very different for priests and Bishops and especially Peter.
    Words are one thing but images, as Catholics well know, are worth a thousand words. Few read the small print but millions look at the headlines and the pictures.
    We are bound before God to love Our Neighbour, we are also bound before God to seek Our neighbours Conversion.
    John Paul II in 1984 couldn’t, wouldn’t name Russia in attempting to Consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The reason is the tacit, understood agreement not to attempt to Convert the Orthodox Church members. Same with the Protestant Churches. The sight of Popes in synagogue or mosques even hindu temples NOT for the purpose of Conversion but tacitly approving these Heretical Sects. These pictures are worth a thousand words.
    The Massonic God that embraces ALL religions, State and Church separation. Insidious and persuasive, even seductive. The Apple held out to be bitten for a One World Of Peace.
    Worldy Peace but not Christ’s Peace.
    The Faith is really simply not complex which is why Our Lord replaced those learned Jewish Theologians 2000 years ago by simply unlearned Men.
    The simple St Francis repeated this Truth in His time.
    Worldly wisdom against the folly of the Cross.
    The Cross isn’t being preached nor taught but rather that brotherly fraternity (pure masonry).
    What matters to God are souls.
    The Mighty he has put down and exulted the Humble.
    All those images, pictures of a smiling fraternity with false and pagan beliefs these are destroying the Faith of Catholics.

  171. ginnyfree says:

    Roger, did you know that Masons routinely refuse to admit publically their affiliation. If one really is a Mason, one is supposed to deny it. Any such list is forbidden for them to even have. They keep secrets and one of the most closely guarded one is who belongs to them. They don’t even know who is a member at other lodges. So, that being their practice, how can there actually be a list of men who are Catholic clerics who are members of the Masonic Temple?
    Rober, the truth is more telling than the fiction: someone compiled a list of persons and slandered them with lie they have no way of proving is a falsehood. Certainly the Masons will not come forward to defend any prelate defamed in such a way. That would be ludicris. They are the ones most pleased with such allegations as their sworn enemy is our Church and all its members. The fact that YOU ROGER, are furthering their cause by agreeing that the slanderous list of Masonic Temple Members in the Church is true, speaks volumes to me and to anyone else who has eyes to see and ears to hear with. You’ve in reality aligned yourself with the Masons in defaming Church members and repeating what is obviously a lie. Like the little fox with feathers in his mouth, telling the farmer that a wolf got into the hen house. Pretty much an accurate description of those who pass off such slanderous falsehoods as truth, defaming Catholic Prelates. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  172. JabbaPapa says:

    I fully agree with your comments about freemasonry, but you are wrong in your notion that “John Paul II in 1984 couldn’t, wouldn’t name Russia in attempting to Consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The reason is the tacit, understood agreement not to attempt to Convert the Orthodox Church members.

    He was indeed forced to name Russia only covertly, in quiet voice before the Altar, but the Virgin let it be known through the words of her seer Lucia of Fatima that the request of Consecration was fulfilled.

    You are right that issues with the Orthodox, who participated in that Consecration, prevented the Pope from naming Russia more openly, though issues with the KGB and the Russian Communist Party were perhaps a source of more direct peril.

  173. JabbaPapa says:

    how can there actually be a list of men who are Catholic clerics who are members of the Masonic Temple?

    Because the freemasons have decided politically to posture as being “more open” etc.

  174. ginnyfree says:

    Roger, you need a refresher course on Catholic Dogma.
    “The Mosaic (Old) Covenant was made void by Christ!”

    The Old Covenant has never been revoked, just it practices. We are still bound by the 10 Commandments, just not the Mosaic prescriptions of the Law, such as circumcision and keeping Kosher.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  175. ginnyfree says:

    Jabba, I’m a convert and my daddy was a Mason as were many men on that side of my family line quite a few generations backwards. Grandpop was a Shriner. Scotish Rite Masons from Scotland to be exact. I was treated rather badly becoming a Catholic by my father and never forgiven for it. I know more about them from the lips of my own daddy then I’d care to. They are evil and some embrace their evils fully to their own destruction. Their “openness” is simply a lodge’s decision to be more seductive. Other lodges prefer to remain closed. In practice they actually are. I don’t wish to talk about it at all.

    There is NO LIST OF MEMBERS existing nor any central organization that maintains any such list of members. It is against their rules to do so. So, there could be no list of Catholic Prelates that belong to them in existence. It is a complete fabrication meant to slander those prelates on said list and it furthers the causes of the enemies of the Church to promote it or further the lie. Nuff said.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  176. JabbaPapa says:

    To be perfectly honest, I would not be surprised in the slightest if it were to emerge that The Remnant were partly controlled by Freemasons.

    Reductionism of Catholic Faith down to its most material & worldly elements as if it were just another philosophy having no Supernatural Presence in the custodianship of the Revelation in the Holy See is typical of that Evil sect.

  177. JabbaPapa says:

    Ginny : Their “openness” is simply a lodge’s decision to be more seductive

    Indeed.

    I unmasked our resident Mason down here a year or more ago, during his attempt to indoctrinate me, and though he tries to joke about it, he was clearly unnerved.

    Their evil claim that the Supernatural Truth of Christian Faith should be subjected to “reason” is utterly the most destructive of their anti-Christian lies.

  178. ginnyfree says:

    In re: “And BTW & FYI — the SSPX has excluded or otherwise reprimanded several priests for taking the sort of line that these so-called “Remnant” are pushing, including the ghastly Williamson ; and the ICKSP and the FSSP split from the Fraternity over precisely this question of intellectual submission to the Roman Pontiff.

    You simply cannot realistically claim that they are all in one basket regarding these issues.”

    Sure she can; it’s simply not true though. An ingredient to the modern relativism that exists among many a Traditionalist that they will vehemently deny they have is to think that the truth is whatever they claim it is and since they’ve adopted a holier than thou attitude towards all things Catholic, their truth is the only truth that matters. This is pure relativism IMHO.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  179. Roger says:

    Ginny

    In England Cardinal Heenan came to an agreement with the Masons whereby they can become Catholics (since 60’s) subject to the approval of the local Bishop.

    Sadly since that time you cannot take for granted that a Catholic isn’t also Mason. You now see known masons receiving Communion. Needless to say they tend to take the high seats and the lead in Ecumenism.

    You doubt whether the list of names as published was true? Then why weren’t the publishers not sued? What was done about this? Nothing but Silence!!

    For me my prayers, reparation and sympathy are directed to Our Holy Mother and Our Lord whose sufferings and sacrifices and sorrows have been thrown back in their Holy Faces.

    Did Pius XII attend synagogues (although he saved many many Jewish lives during WW II )?
    In 1945 an Italian Chief Rabbi Sees Jesus on Yom Kippur. Israel Zolli, chief rabbi of Rome, had a religious epiphany that led him to convert to Christianity and take the name Eugenio Maria Zolli, after Pope Pius XII.

    Now simply ask yourself whether such a conversion could have happened after 1960? On the contrary they are being encouraged to believe in a Covenant that no longer exists. (Dogma). Same is happening with the Schismatics, Heretics and Pagans encouraged to stay within their darkness.

    A picture is worth a thousand words!

  180. Roger says:

    Abraham’s Covenant was the ONE seed that’s Our Lord (being baptised we have put on Christ and are of the seed of Abraham)

    St Paul Galatians 3 (read all the verses)

    [16] To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    [26] For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.
    [27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.
    [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    [29] And if you be Christ’ s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

    The Mosaic Covenant called the Old Covenant – This is the position of the synagogue today- This Old Covenant nolonger exists.
    (A temporary Covenant until Christ came to fulfil all things.)

    [23] But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.
    [24] Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
    [25] But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.

    To leave your neighbour in darkness or imply that Abraham’s Covenant was to HIS SEED (singular-Christ) not his seeds. This is the Faith and has been taught from the Apostles , by the Councils, the Popes etc.. up until apparently 1960 onwards.

  181. Roger says:

    Just really to clear this matter up we have Pius XII “MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI ”

    The following covers the important Dogma that the Old Law has been replaced by the New Testament. The Synagogue replaced by the Church. Please understand that this is DOGMA and to have contrary opinions is Heretical.

    29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] – the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” [35]

    30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. “For it was through His triumph on the Cross,” according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, “that He won power and dominion over the gentiles”;[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God’s anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.

  182. ginnyfree says:

    Roger, you are a fool. “The Mosaic Covenant called the Old Covenant – This is the position of the synagogue today- This Old Covenant no longer exists.
    (A temporary Covenant until Christ came to fulfil all things.)”
    DO NOT try to speak for any Jews today. You have no idea what you are talking about. Judiasm is still practiced today by many, many people, reformed and not. According to both, they keep the Covenant. My grandmom being one as well as several other relatives, both living and deceased. So please don’t even try to tell me what they believe and or practice. I lived it.
    And once again, you are also wrong to express the Church’s dogma regarding the part of the Law called the 10 Commandments. I’ve correctly stated what the Church teaches. I know you are incapable of admitting error. I understand that. But for once, could not try to prove your position by speaking for the Jews about all this? I borders on insulting to me, and it most certainly is to them.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  183. JabbaPapa says:

    You are confusing the Law with the Covenant.

  184. Toad says:

    Moderators, you seem to have overlooked this comment as well.
    Peace and Love, Tod

    Toad says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 6, 2016 at 05:48
    “Pope Francis has declared to some outside the Church that there is no need to become a Catholic in order to be saved
    (Jabba) No he hasn’t, he has said, in accordance with the teaching of the Church dating back to Antiquity, that salvation is possible for some who are outside the visible Church.”

    Let’s hope, for the sake of a vestige of sanity, that Jabba is right on this one, as well. Even so, the idea (to paraphrase Orwell) that Heaven is some sort of exclusive country club – no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Atheists, Anglicans ( no, not even C.S. Lewis) allowed – struck me as absurd and exclusionary when I first heard it taught as gospel about 65 years ago. And it still does.
    Though I’m comforted by Marx’s comment , “I don’t want to belong to any club that would tolerate me as a member.”

  185. Roger says:

    My purpose really is seeing here good Catholics as it were at logger heads.

    The ten commandments are the Natural Law commonly found where Man has been found.
    This is the Law placed by God in all Men.
    I am not confusing the Natural Law with the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law). St Paul is very clear of the differences between the two Covenants.

    A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.

    The Faith !
    Jewish rejection of Christ
    “.. just as it would be A MORTAL SIN now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, ..”
    Taking part in a Jewish religious ceremony
    “.. it would be A MORTAL SIN now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old (Jews) fulfilled with devotion and fidelity..”

    Catholics should not active participation in a false religious ceremony, and therefore is equivalent to a false profession of faith. THIS IS A MORTAL SIN.

    Pope Benedict XIV “the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and… they can no longer be observed WITHOUT SIN after the promulgation of the Gospel”

    The prayer of Pope Pius XI for the conversion of the Jews: “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life”. Amen

    St Thomas
    Question: Whether since Christ’s Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?

    I answer that, All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’ where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she ‘conceived and bore.’ In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity” (I II, Q 103, A 4).

    St Paul Galatians (God’s interpretation of Two Covenants prefigured by Isaac and Ismael Sons of Abraham)
    [21] Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?
    [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman.
    [23] But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise.
    [24] Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar:
    [25] For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
    [26] But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother.
    [27] For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband.
    [28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
    [29] But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now.
    [30] But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.
    [31] So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

  186. johnhenrycn says:

    Somebody shoot me.

  187. Toad says:

    I would gladly, JH – anything to oblige a pal – but, thanks to the “Moderators,” the bullet wouldn’t arrive until some time next Advent.

  188. johnhenrycn says:

    🙂

  189. Toad says:

    Very quick to run Toad when he’s not being serious, aren’t we?
    Do I sense a teeny bit of hypocritical censorship from the Fearless Faithful?

    Not at all. Just a novice moderator working through the backlog, Toad. ;o)

  190. Roger says:

    Why John Henryen?

    Shooting yourself would be the Sin of Suicide.
    Asking somebody to shoot you makes them commit the Sin of murder to your Sin of suicide.

    Same as a Catholic worshiping(or appearing to worship) in a synagogue is denying the Christ which is a Mortal Sin. At the same time concurring with those who SINFULLY deny that the Christ has come.

    The position is very clear from the time of the Apostles to 1958.

  191. johnhenrycn says:

    Rotbot (19:42) asks: “Why John Henryen?

    You know what I don’t get? Why do some people here call me johnhenryen, and why is mmvc sometimes called mmve? It’s not like c and e are side-by-side on the keyboard. Roger does it, Kehoe does it, and some other infrequent commenter recently did so too. I don’t mind, but is there a specific eye condition or injury that causes them to do this? Perhaps our recent optical surgery survivor Toad has some insight on this important conundrum. I would ask Jabbers, but he’d give me a long screed on how it’s all a Masonic Remnant plot.
    ___
    Which reminds me: A very nice lady, Alexandra Matt, presumably a descendant of The Remant Matt family sent me an e-mail today offering to send me a complimentary copy of their September 15-30 double issue containing their complete 3 part Open Letter – J’accuse – to His Holiness. And she didn’t even ask me for a secret Masonic password or handshake.

  192. johnhenrycn says:

    More seriously: I have preserved many newspapers dealing with monumental happenings during my lifetime. 9/II of course. Also Brexit, papal deaths and elections, the killing of Bin Laden, the marriage of William and the commoner, Fukushima, the first mulatto president, the murder of Schiavo, the death of Pierre Trudeau, and so forth…But I think The Remnant issue publishing that Open Letter is going to be the most memorable one I will read in years to come.

  193. Toad says:

    “Why John Henryen? Shooting yourself would be the Sin of Suicide, etc..”
    If I had to choose between the loss of my sight and that of my sense of humour – it would not be a difficult decision.

    If God has so ordered the structure of the world that only Catholics ( and only a pitiful handful of them, it seems) have the opportunity to make it to heaven – the only reasonable conclusion must be that He is either malign ir incompetent. I don’t believe He is either.

    Those who can – do. Those who can’t – moderate.
    Good luck in your new career, whoever you are.

  194. kathleen says:

    Listen carefully all amphibians and [supposedly]-free-from-gin other commenters who assume opinions in others THAT HAVE NOT BEEN EXPRESSED:
    Our Almighty, All-Good and Ever-Loving God may (and will) save from Hell just whomsoever He judges worthy. (N.B., not whom we think may be worthy.)
    That does not excuse any baptised Catholic from following His Commandments and the Commandments of the Church to desire and seek conversion of everyone to the One True Church founded by Christ, Who gave ‘the keys’ to Peter for all time.

    Liberals and holier-than-thou commenters who accuse others – often the most orthodox, gentle and kindest – of perhaps their very own flaws (e.g., “*** you are a fool”, “liars”, “schismatics”, “arrogance”, “idiots”, “nutters”, etc.) should beware. They are demonstrating some of the very same faults they accuse others of having, besides a glaringly obvious lack of charity.

    And to JH – what would we do without your unique wit to soften all the blows? We’d be thoroughly depressed. Bless you dear friend.😉

  195. ginnyfree says:

    Toad, how much thought have you given Purgatory? Is it gone so completely from your mind and outlook that only Heaven and Hell remain? Most sinners get Purgatory which only leads to Heaven, so expand your mind a little and let the reality of Purgatory inform your outlook a little.

    Just a thought. God bless. Ginnyfree

  196. ginnyfree says:

    Kathleen, for the most part I’ve ignored this slander: ” [supposedly]-free-from-gin” The implication of this slander is that I’m a drunk who is SUPPOSEDLY off the sauce. This is NOT the first time persons here have slandered me this way. It is injurous and it is meant to be. It gets said so as to sway other’s impressions of what I say, as in “Don’t listen to her; she’s a drunk.” You’ve used it, Toad has used it, MMCV has used it, Roger has used it, etc. I’ve ignored it. But it still is an ad hominem attack upon my good name, a sinful slander meant to hurt me and malign the truths of the Church I bring here.
    Now for this next comment, “they accuse others of having, besides a glaringly obvious lack of charity” How on God’s green earth can you, in particular, be considered as being charitable AFTER CALLING ME A DRUNK whose supposedly off the sauce?

    This may help: “In Roman Catholic theology, detraction is the sin of revealing another person’s faults to a third person without a valid reason. This differs from the sin of calumny and the civil wrong of defamation, which generally involve false accusations rather than unflattering truths.”

    So which is it Kathleen? Calumny or detraction? I’ll settle for ad hominem intended to disparage the truths I bring to the discussion here so as to sway others from actually hearing what I say and giving it a second thought. Very human of you, but not very charitable. I’m not the only one whose noticed BTW. You may want to think about that. We are known by our love, or in this case, our lack of it.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

    P.S. My name has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol. But if you prefer to continue to slander me publically, enjoy yourself. Just do so aware that it does show a streak of fur rather than wool.

  197. kathleen says:

    Ginnyfree, you really are the limit.
    You come in here slandering, insulting, and telling people they are going to be condemned forever for expressing their opinions, that supposedly differ to yours, unless they hurry to Confession (who’s now “holier than thou”?) and then show shocked surprise if we retaliate a little. Though mmvc (Maryla) and Roger do not defend themselves against your venomous tongue (i.e., calling mmvc – the sweetest of girls – a “liar”, and gentle, devout Roger, a “fool”!!), I, OTOH, have more of the fighting Irish spirit in me, and cannot sit by and let you get away with damaging their reputations in this way. So send more of your spiteful name-calling (that you excel in) my way if you want – I don’t care – but leave these (and other good people) in peace.

    We are known by our love, or in this case, our lack of it.

    EXACTLY. You said it !

    P.S. The messing around with your name, + its insinuations, was no more than boisterous teasing. Get over it!

  198. JabbaPapa says:

    holier-than-thou commenters who accuse others – often the most orthodox, gentle and kindest – of perhaps their very own flaws (e.g., “*** you are a fool”, “liars”, “schismatics”, “arrogance”, “idiots”, “nutters”, etc.) should beware. They are demonstrating some of the very same faults they accuse others of having, besides a glaringly obvious lack of charity

    Is such charity to be sought in the Pope-bashing or in such phrases as “[supposedly]-free-from-gin” ?

    Are you not, perhaps, confusing heartfelt warnings against schism for “liberalism” ?

  199. JabbaPapa says:

    The messing around with your name, + its insinuations, was no more than boisterous teasing

    No, it isn’t.

    ginny’s right :

    But it still is an ad hominem attack upon my good name

    Yep.

  200. JabbaPapa says:

    And on a more personal note :

    I, OTOH, have more of the fighting Irish spirit in me

    Yeah, well I’m half-Finn.

  201. Toad says:

    Well, that little exchange ruffled a few feathers, didn’t it? Good.
    Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) Toads don’t have any.

    And yes, Toad did start the “Gin” jokes.
    And yes, it was malicious, not “boisterous fun.. ”
    And, in my opinion, JH is also malicious.
    Perhaps not as much.
    But it’s a fine line. And it amuses Kathleen.

    Didn’t Purgatory get dumped along with Limbo?
    No? Oh, well.
    Better make sure my asbestos underpants are clean and ready

  202. kathleen says:

    Don’t be childish, Jabba! (Oh dear – another one with zero sense of humour.😦 ) I have no idea whether ginnyfree drinks gin or not. How could I? The only thing she has told us about herself is part of her ancestry, and that she is blonde and fat!

    Are you not, perhaps, confusing heartfelt warnings against schism for “liberalism” ?

    Oh, come on! You let off far more gunfire against fellow Catholics from the Remnant than simple “heartfelt warnings” – though your personal attacks were nowhere near as nasty as ginny’s.

    I’m half-Finn.

    You’ll have to tell this ignoramus what that is supposed to mean.

  203. mmvc says:

    Dear Ginny,
    Most commenters don’t use their real names, so it might reasonably be assumed that ginnyfree is not your actual name. Therefore your ‘name’ – ‘good’ or otherwise – has hardly been attacked.

    The way you have judged good people here to be en route to hell (I do think you owe Kathleen an apology for that btw) & emphasised your allegiance to the pope so creepily, was enough to make me wonder about your sobriety. But I am sure that the word-play on gin-nyfree was never intended to be anything other than a bit of a dig in response to some of your more offensive contributions.

    In my boarding school days I was sometimes teasingly called ‘Maryla the gorilla’ – much to my annoyance. It amuses me that now the little rhyme comes in handy when people struggle to pronounce the Polish name my parents gave me. I guess we all have to grow up sooner or later…

    As an aside, my baptismal name is Maria-Magdalena. Quite a mouthful, but what a patron saint I have!

  204. johnhenrycn says:

    Well, to be fair to Anti-Gin, lots of Finns are drunks. A few half-Finns, too. I think I’ve already told the story of how it’s difficult in some northern Ontario towns to buy rope on Saturday mornings, because the Finns and some half-Finns have bought the whole lot on Friday nights to hang themselves.

  205. johnhenrycn says:

    I should add that my own “Anti-gin” pun was inspired by antigen, not liquor.

    Antigen/ˈan(t)əjən/ noun: a toxin or other foreign substance that induces an immune response in the body.”

  206. johnhenrycn says:

    I shouldn’t be such a blog hog, but one last point (by me) on all this hurt feelings stuff: my last name is a bit difficult for English speakers to remember – so when I’m introduced to people, I tell them to follow the very helpful mnemonic practice of thinking of an associative word, which in the case of my surname happens to be one that sounds like tequila, not gin.

  207. Tom Fisher says:

    or whatever enters our heads

    And that, Toad, is all the excuse I need to announce that exactly a week from now I’ll be starting a month of (undeserved) obligation free holiday in the UK and Ireland. (And I have a clear diary for the coming week before we leave). Won’t even driving; nothing but trains, pubs and churches. — Which is to say, I’m in such an unshakably good mood that I think I’ll point out that everyone who comments here even semi-regularly is worth reading. And I feel warmly disposed to you all. Although I enjoy watching the fights!

  208. ginnyfree says:

    Toad, nice to see you back to your normal curmudgeonly state of toadiness. Perhaps we should dub you Sir Toad and then we could address as “Your Toadship.” God bless. Ginnyfree.

  209. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom, didn’t you just get back from a holiday trip to New England? I’m envious of your next trip. May it be a fabulous, relaxing and inspiring one.
    ___
    p.s. Stay away from Luton. And Slough.

  210. johnhenrycn says:

    …and Glasgow, and Bradford and Maynooth.

  211. Toad says:

    “Perhaps we should dub you Sir Toad and then we could address as “Your Toadship.” God bless. Ginnyfree.”

    By all means, Ginless .
    Dub me whatever makes you less miserable. aggressive and picky to us all – as you feed your unfortunate family on Sunday with yesterday’s cold “Big Macs” for lunch.
    I’m a republican (small “R”‘) myself, but who cares? Although I do suspect that all this “Kings and Queens of Heaven,” stuff has contributed to the reasonable assumption that it is all utterly redundant, and that Prince Charles, for example, ,is just as big a twit as you or II
    Although, I have no idea what he gives the kids for “dinner, ” or how many mortally sinful
    hours he spends cooking it all

  212. mmvc says:

    For papal encyclicals I’d trust Reggie over Fr Victor – ‘Heal me with your mouth – The Art of Kissing ‘ – Fernandez any day!

  213. Tom Fisher says:

    a holiday trip to New England?

    That wasn’t a pleasure trip — thanks for the avoidance tips, what could those locales possibly have in common?

  214. Toad says:

    Sloppy old Moderators – you keep “forgetting ” to run this comment. Pull your socks up!

    A moderator: no we’re not going to run it even after your four attempts. Try not insulting the intellects and integrity of the writers of this blog and its readers. Got it? And pull your socks up – we almost forgot that part.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s