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.

89 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!

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