Pope Francis is at peace with Vatican corruption but worries over young and traditional vocations

From Vox Cantoris:

You can read it all here. More insults, more degradation to those following a “rigid” life.

http://www.corriere.it/english/17_febbraio_09/pope-francis-there-is-corruption-the-vatican-but-m-at-peace-5f115a68-eeaa-11e6-b691-ec49635e90c8.shtml

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-denounces-traditional-orders-bursting-with-young-people?

Look at these rigid yutes. These who Bergoglio mocks.

Vicar of Christ, you say?

Vicar of the “god of surprises!”
Image result for young seminarians latin
Image result for young seminarians latin
Image result for young seminarians latin
Related image
Image result for young seminarians latin
Image result for young seminarians latin
Image result for traditional nuns
Image result for young seminarians latin
Image result for juventutem
Image result for juventutem

Image may contain: 4 people, people standing, crowd and outdoor

 Thanks, Vox, for these inspiring images. And thanks be to God for those ‘rigid’ souls!
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Pope Francis is at peace with Vatican corruption but worries over young and traditional vocations

  1. Bergoglio is “at peace”?

    Sure.

  2. A friend commented: “Bergoglio the Merciful is ‘at peace’? Better watch out. Pretty soon he’s going to feel the need to maintain that ‘peace,’ by getting rid of a cardinal or two, maybe a bishop and a few priests, or by shutting down another religious group like the Franciscans of the Immaculate or by taking control of some group like the Knights of Malta and firing their leader.”

  3. johnhenrycn says:

    I hear that Holy Father is thinking of appointing Cardinal Burke as the Patron of the Sovereign Order of Vatican City Street Sweepers.

  4. Traditionally, Catholics respect the Pope

  5. marysong says:

    I respect the Pope but I don’t respect some of the things he says and does. I don’t respect the way he treats the Franciscans of the Immaculate or, of more recent days, the Order of Malta. I don’t respect the way he frightens my family and friends by veiled threats … sometimes not so veiled … about us holding fast to the original Catholic Faith of our Fathers. I respect the office of the Pope and have not given up on that. I never will for it is the Rock. I pray that the merciful Pope will have mercy on the world by asking for grace from Our Lady … the kind which only she knows that he needs … to understand Fatima. After all, he has consecrated his Papacy to Our Lady of Fatima. I respect the ‘being’ of the little man who wears white and wants to be called the Bishop of Rome. He really is the Pope. Is he?

  6. kathleen says:

    He really is the Pope. Is he?”

    Good question, Marysong!

    From the LifeSite link:

    “When they tell me that there is a congregation that draws so many vocations, I must confess that I worry,”

    “Worry”?? So says Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ on Earth, chosen as prime guardian and teacher of the Deposit of Faith to lead souls to Heaven….!! He worries that vocations to the Holy Priesthood are flourishing in congregations that are loyal to Christ’s Divine Law?

    Who is this enemy of the Catholic Faith? Only an “enemy”, surely, would deplore the fact that generous souls are hearing the call of a priestly or religious vocation! These young people are willing to offer their lives in service to Christ and the Church… and the pope disapproves??

    I mean, honestly, is this really happening? Can we really believe our ears to what this man (who we are told is the pope) is saying here?

    No wonder the ‘toads’ of the world, those who work to undermine Catholicism and have nothing but disdain for the precepts of the Church, cheerfully hail Francis as their hero!

  7. toadspittle says:

    “No wonder the ‘toads’ of the world, those who work to undermine Catholicism and have nothing but disdain for the precepts of the Church, cheerfully hail Francis as their hero!”

    Not my “hero,”Kathleen. That would go to far bigger fish, like Wittgenstein, Unamuno, Kant and Voltaire.
    But, I do enjoy they way Francis is cheerfully kicking over the traditional apple cart – and causing The Old Gang to emit high-pitched screams of impotent rage that only bats can hear.

    Nor do I have the slightest interest in “working to undermine” Catholicism.
    It seems to be doing a perfectly efficient job of undermining itself, without any help from the likes of me
    Doesn’t it, now?.

  8. johnhenrycn says:

    NorthernHermit (04:06) – Respect for the Pope? Yes. Unconditional, unquestioning deference to everything he says? No. As Fr Hunwicke writes in his “Adopt A Pope” piece yesterday:

    “Many people…are profoundly depressed, even disorientated, by this sad and dysfunctional pontificate. Many are angry; many feel themselves driven almost to the point of losing their Faith. And the signs are that things may get even worse. One gigantic casualty has been the great respect which decent orthodox Catholics instinctively have for the person (not just the position) of the Roman Pontiff.”

    He’s saying respect can be lost, and who can gainsay that possibility? Did not some popes in history deserve to lose it? Furthermore, respect is a two-way street; and our pope (he still is our pope despite all that’s happened these past 4 years) has insulted many faithful Catholics with some quite offensive statements aimed directly at them – Catholics who might otherwise be inclined to hold their tongues when he expresses alarming opinions on matters of faith and practice.

    As for my minor quip about Vatican City Street Sweepers, I never use derogatory terms (e.g. “Bergoglio”) when speaking of PF, but surely some gentle “Eye of the Tiber” type jokes are not impertinent or careless of his dignity or that of his office.

  9. kathleen says:

    Toad gloats with joy to see traditional Catholics suffer great distress under this “sad and dysfunctional pontificate” (pace, Fr Hunwicke); that comes as no surprise to anyone!
    He is delighted to find none other than the pope himself joining the likes of himself and the rest of the world’s ‘toads’ to undermine and spit upon the Holy Bride of Christ.

    Surely even the Angels must be weeping to behold the horrors that we are being dished up every single day in the Church! While liberal, pro-sodomite, pro-adultery clerics (whose heretical views would have been anathema in former times and they’d have been removed from ministry) are now being promoted… faithful priests and bishops are being punished and demoted. As this growing switch over from orthodox to heterodox clergy fills the ranks of the Masonic-infiltrated Vatican – all under the direction of this bullying pope – Fr Hunwicke is evidently right that things can only get increasingly WORSE!

    Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s prophesies of the Church, together with the many warnings we have received from the Blessed Virgin Mary at recognised apparition sites, leaves no doubt in the minds of most traditional Catholics, that these are the days foreseen by Pope Leo XIII when Satan would be unchained and would “walk the corridors of the Vatican”!

    We must not “jump ship” (i.e., lose our faith or bury our head in the sand, ostrich-fashion); now more than ever is when we must leave despondency behind and step up on faithfulness to Christ and our prayer life. We are the souls, hand-picked by God(!!), to fight these demons from Hell with all the means available to us.
    Our hope lies in Our Lady who has promised us the final Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.

  10. toadspittle says:

    “..to undermine and spit upon the Holy Bride of Christ.”
    What a way to describe a difference of opinion.
    And one within the very Church itself.
    Kathleen in your comment here you are getting close to raving. Try to remember that just because some people don’t share your prejudices, that doesn’t necessarily make them evil. They are your neighbours and you are commanded to love them (It says here.) Of course change is never easy, and most of us don’t care for it, especially when it upsets the tenor of our lives.

    “We are the souls, hand-picked by God(!!), “
    Sinful and prideful arrogance. To imagine that you and your faction alone have drawn the winning ticket in the lottery of eternity. Surely God deserves a little more credit than that?

  11. toadspittle says:

    The first eight of the “inspiring images” (and the last one) demonstrate to old-fashioned Catholics what’s “right” about the Church. To the rest of the world they demonstrate just the opposite. Total segregation of the sexes. Still, at least we all know where we are.

  12. geoffkiernan says:

    Well said Kathleen…
    This is the same ‘Holy Father’ who could not understand why young people with no previous knowledge of the Traditional Latin Rite are suddenly flocking to it. With respect, is that just dumb or what?

  13. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 06:24 yesterday

    Sinful and prideful arrogance. To imagine that you and your faction alone have drawn the winning ticket in the lottery of eternity. Surely God deserves a little more credit than that?

    Are you really so obtuse, Toad, or are you just pretending to be?

    You were baptised a Catholic, weren’t you? This made you too a privileged member of the Catholic Church. Therefore you too received the same gifts of sanctifying grace that all Catholics do, and became one of what you derogatorily call this “faction”! You once drew the winning “lottery ticket” too and was “hand-picked” by God to be His follower and witness in these challenging times.
    Looks like you threw the “winning ticket” back in God’s Face!!

    A selfish and lascivious lifestyle (like the one you have often recounted here) is what leads people to lose their faith. Now, with that heavy burden of subconscious guilt on your shoulders, you are childishly trying to project the weight (blame) onto others, i.e., all believing Catholics!

    In your snide mockery of Catholicism, you are reaching hysterical levels in your desire to offend. It prompts you day after day to tap out a steadily increasing number of sarcastic and nonsensical comments…. about 90% of which we painstakingly let through. Or you ask the same old questions that, when patiently answered, you never attempt to scrutinise seriously. (Would to do so require a change of direction, one you are not prepared to make?)

    Toad, there’s only one way to recover the pearl of great price you lost long ago. And I think in your heart of hearts you know what this “way” is.
    For your sake, I hope you find it.

  14. Tom Fisher says:

    There is a problem here.

    The problem is one of precedent. I remember people getting upset if BXVI was referred to as “Ratzinger”. And rightly so. But it is supposed to be the conservatives who hold the line on this sort of thing. But if this pope is “Bergoglio” then the next pope is “surname at birth” no matter how holy.

    Conservative/traditional/real Catholics run the risk of permanently diminishing respect for the papacy. Most liberals don’t care. If the conservatives say it’s fine to refer to the pope by just his “surname at birth”, then it’s open season.

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    I agree, Tom. In the case of the pope, we should try extra hard – and it is hard – to play the ball, not the man. How are things in the world’s derriere?

  16. mmvc says:

    Thank you, Gentlemen.
    Adjusted.
    The former heading was that of the original post.

  17. kathleen says:

    Tom @ 07:39 yesterday

    Thank you for pointing this out, and to Maryla for amending the title of the article.
    All the same, you may have noticed that although we at CP&S have serious misgivings about this pope who seems to be daily dishing up worldly banalaties…. and even working at destroying the Holy Catholic Faith – let’s admit it – yet, as far as I remember, not one of us has ever resorted to calling him simply “Bergoglio”. It’s an unnecessary despective manner of addressing the pope (even one who fits the role so badly) and to do so only results in weakening a legitimate argument deploring his many un-Catholic actions and utterances.

    However, those who refer to Pope Francis as the “Bishop of Rome” are committing no infraction (IMHO), for this is how he used to frequently refer to himself… (Although to do so, downplays the role of the Papacy!)

    Even so, I have great sympathy with all fellow traditional Catholics who, loving the Holy Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church, as we all do, feel driven to the end of our tether sometimes as we watch the Vicar of Christ continually demeaning and undermining the Church’s sacred teachings, and Her millions of faithful members. It all seems so inexplicably crazy!

  18. Brother Burrito says:

    I agree Tom, there is a problem here.

    This blog has become a nidus around which the citizens of Nutzville are gathering and ranting together in pseudo-harmony.

    I tire of defending Pope Francis, not because he is not worth defending, but because my words fall upon deaf ears. I feel like the person tasked with teaching pigs to sing.

    Yes, precedent is everything. To sin once is understandable. To sin twice is extremely inadvisable, but to sin more often than that is to form a habit of vice and then it becomes damnable.

    PRAY for the Pope, remain humble and in fellowship with him. Leave everything else to God. He knows exactly what He is doing, unlike us.

  19. Brother Burrito says:

    JH, that cappa magna must be a dirt magnet. I hope he cleans up.

  20. toadspittle says:

    “This blog has become a nidus around which the citizens of Nutzville are gathering and ranting together in pseudo-harmony.”
    I’d like to have been able to say that. But I would be :moderated.”.

    What I did say a day or so ago, (which was, of course, censored) Was that calling the Pope “Bergoglio,” Was mannerless, loutish, and vulgar. Which it is.

  21. geoffkiernan says:

    BB: Pray FOR the Holy Father should be the operative phrase in this case. Can you really. seriously pray for his intentions?
    I understand, ‘remain humble’ but just what does. ‘remain in fellowship with him’ actually mean. Does one cancel out the other? Tom is a past exponent at double talk BB. are you attaching yourself to to his star without a thought of the consequences.
    I dont endorse disrespect for the Holy Father. He is however the the very hu-man face of the Petrine Office and as such demands our respect He is quite able to be corrupted by the father of lies like the rest of us. The confusion the Holy Father has been sowing for a number of year now, is not a gift of the Holy Spirit.
    There is indeed a ‘problem here’ Tom. But don’t confuse the issue under the vehicle/guise of a lack of respect for the Holy Father. Say it like it is. I have no problems with recognizing the Office of the Vicar of Christ but remember it is Christ’ Church not the Holy Fathers and any Catholic worth his salt knows when the Vicar of Christ (past or present) is preaching or proposing error or sowing confusion. We dont make excuses for any deficiencies, we stand and deliver like the Soldiers of Christ that we are meant to be. There is no kudos for being weak in the defense of the Church. And there is a direct correlation between how much we pray for the Holy Father and how much we correct or criticize Him. We are permitted to do both.
    “Conservative/traditionalist run the risk of permanently diminishing the Papacy” Remember the Holy Father runs the same risk. The damage wrought by the Holy Father would far outweigh any damage done by anyone else.

  22. Brother Burrito says:

    “Mannerless, loutish, and vulgar”

    Yep, my thoughts exactly, dear contrarian Toad.

    As a physician, I see the Body of Christ, the Church, as if it is in a state of septic shock, a state where most of its energy is being spent in self-destruction rather than fighting against the true disease, which is the lack of simple consciousness of Christ as the archetype and model of all human souls destined for eternity.

    My only hope is that God, the infinitely superior physician, has treatment plans, beyond my wildest imaginings, that will certainly effect the cure.

    I remain both a patient, and a relative of patients, who await His life saving therapy.

  23. mmvc says:

    “As a physician, I see the Body of Christ, the Church…”

    As a Catholic, I see the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, as undergoing the Passion complete
    with betrayal (selling out to the world), denial (of Christ’s true teaching) and scourging (blow after blow for those who steadfastly and courageously defend Christ and His Truth) by its very shepherds.

    “…that cappa magna must be a dirt magnet.”

    Thanks for completing the symbolism, BB: that liturgical garment, that object of so much ridicule (esp. when worn by our faithful shepherd, Cardinal Burke), a symbol of the blood of martyrdom and the kingship of Christ, as a ‘dust magnet’ sweeping up the filth of the mockers and scorners of Holy and Sacred Tradition. Brilliant!

    BB, it might be worth your while re-reading what JH, Kathleen, marysong and geoffkiernan have written about the papacy in this thread. Instead of ‘ranting’, I see respect for the papacy, the sacred office instituted by none other than Our Lord Jesus Christ, and dismay and sorrow over the current reign of confusion. I also see hope in the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail and that the “Immaculate Heart will triumph”.

    We’ve amended the inappropriate title of this otherwise encouraging piece by Vox, so let’s move on.
    Now go teach some pigs to sing. Priceless! 😉

    God love you!

  24. kathleen says:

    @ BB

    “This blog has become a nidus around which the citizens of Nutzville are gathering and ranting together in pseudo-harmony.”

    Well, there’s nothing stopping you trotting over instead to a nice progressive blog run by grinning liberals like Cardinal Kasper, is there? All very hunky dory there, where anything goes. They lap up all the utterances of Pope Francis and don’t care two hoots if they contradict the timeless teachings of the Catholic Church and those of Her saints and martyrs.

    Really BB, I never thought to see you stoop so low as you have here above! Your lack of charity and jeering towards us, and especially the HORRIBLE remark aimed at holy Cardinal Burke, has really shocked me. What’s got into you?

    Can you not see that those who TRULY love Christ and His* Holy Catholic Church are standing up for Christ’s teaching? Can you not see that we are being attacked by an infiltration of enemies of the Faith that are undermining what the Church has ALWAYS taught? Can you not see the damage Pope Francis is causing to the Church?

    * Yes, Christ’s Church (as Geoff pointed out) and not Francis’. He has no authority to make a church in his own image!!

    But despite all that, and reiterating what Geoff, Maryla and others have said, we pray for the Pope. He is surely in desperate need of prayer!

  25. kathleen says:

    @ Toad

    “What I did say a day or so ago, (which was, of course, censored) Was that calling the Pope “Bergoglio,” Was mannerless, loutish, and vulgar. Which it is.”

    “Mannerless”, did you say? “Loutish and vulgar”?
    What an old hypocrite you are Toad! Motes and beams, and all that…
    Or are your comments on our blog anything other than “mannerless, loutish, and vulgar”?

    Nobody on the team of CP&S has called the Pope just “Bergoglio”. We have naturally criticised his many disturbing pronouncements (some that could even be called heterodox!) – and in the name of proclaiming Christ’s true teachings we shall continue to do so – but in deference to the Papacy we have not used such rude language to describe his person.

  26. toadspittle says:

    “Well, there’s nothing stopping you trotting over instead to a nice progressive blog run by grinning liberals like Cardinal Kasper, is there?”
    What’s the point of that? The problem is here.

    “..we pray for the Pope. He is surely in desperate need of prayer!”
    The inference being that “we” aren’t.

    “Or are your (Toad’s) comments on our blog anything other than “mannerless, loutish, and vulgar”?”
    Find me a single one I've made that you think fits that bill, Kathleen. Then we will see.

  27. kathleen says:

    There is no “problem” here, Toad… not for any true traditional Catholic anyway.

    You claim to be a non-believer, so naturally a Catholic blog defending Catholic Tradition, doctrine and dogma, devoted to the TLM, the Catholic Church’s beautiful Liturgy, etc., etc., is not going to be your cup of tea, is it? It will be “a problem” for you!

    And as for an example of lack of “manners”, there you have it! You telling us on our traditional CATHOLIC blog, that we are the “problem”!
    (Didn’t need to look very far, eh?)

  28. johnhenrycn says:

    Burrito says:
    “This blog has become a nidus [source of infection] around which the citizens of Nutzville are gathering and ranting together in pseudo-harmony…I feel like the person tasked with teaching pigs to sing.”

    A perfect trifecta of contempt. As a Nutzvillian, I’m sad you choose to insult the blog you invited me to be a part of years ago, and which you now denounce. Very Frere Rabity of you.

  29. geoffkiernan says:

    BB at 1124:
    ‘Mannerless loutish and vulgar’ …..”yep my thought exactly dear contrarian Toad”
    Lie with the household pet BB and you will rise with fleas. in this case warts.

    I am a little surprised by you BB? Your following comments** are suggestive of someone coming in on an argument at the half way mark. I refer to a deficient perception of the state of the Church given the past 50 odd years (Post VII) You cant have a balanced understanding of what has transpired when you have nothing to compare it with (pre VII) There is one massive exception and that is with the assistance of Divine Grace given by a loving Father to all who ask for it or who are properly predisposed .
    ** I also “see the Body of Christ, the Church as if it is in a state of septic shock. A state where most of her energy is being spent in self destruction rather than fighting against the true disease” These words cannot be faulted but at this point you falter.
    The Body of Christ, the Church still stands firm. The Truth is in Her, still undiluted and incorruptible as it has always been. You mistake the human component led by a very hu-man Holy Father as the Church. You infer that those who defend her are the cause of the onset of toxic/septic shock whereas those that seek to change and dilute her unchanging doctrine are to blame. Your thinking, although well intentioned is, to use the vernacular ‘arse about’. That’s what happens when you enter an argument half way through.
    The ‘real disease’ takes the form of a wholesale attack on the unassailable and immutable Truths as expounded by the Bride of Christ by the only entity that would benefit from Her demise. (h)e is assisted by the liberal modernist types ( Kasper, Marx, Daneels,Dolan and many others who are attacking Her from the inside) and sadly the Holy Father is firmly within their ranks. The are others equally capable of defending the Church Your apparent inability to distinguish which is which is a worry.
    His ‘treatment plans’ include the Immaculate Heart . She will prove to be the consummate antidote.

    Your suggestion that this site harbors a nest of vipers is truly astounding. Of all the sites, and I visit many, this one is by far the healthiest, never afraid to accommodate the reprobate of all shades (some who would not survive on other sites hence their persistent intrusions here. Ever wondered why our Toad is found no where else?) but ever ready to offer a defense by some pretty competent commentators.
    Pray for the Holy Father, pray for the Church and pray for all who grace or disgrace these pages…

  30. toadspittle says:

    Not a lot of brotherly (or sisterly) love around these days. I blame The Holy Father..

    Yes, Kathleen – I do occasionally take issue with the TradCaths.
    But I hope I do it in a mannerly, civilised, and literate, fashion.
    Matter of opinion, of course.

    (@ 07:03 a.m.)

    ..and what would CP&S do if it didn’t have Toad to kick around like a football?
    Hang around on street corners, and get up to miscief – I suspect

    [Moderator – Two comments rolled into one.]

  31. Brother Burrito says:

    JH,

    Well, now that a big gun like you has joined the fray, then whichever local newspaper reports on these matters, it can truthfully run the headline:

    “Things are really kicking off in Nutzville!”

    Trifecta is an excellent word. Thanks for making me better informed. 😉

    PS: In God’s eyes, one is only a traitor when one’s sedition is against Holy Truth.

    Whether I am that or not, well the jury is out until Judgement Day.

    It is the duty of every Christian to live by Christ-Think, not group-think.

    I see a lot of the latter around these parts, more’s the pity.

    As long as we are all True, we shall be friends again in Heaven.

    God bless all sides in a falling out.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Harrumph: I’m not actually a citizen of Nutsville CP&S, although I do have the honour of holding a visitor’s visa issued when I was deported from Holy Smoke and later from the Catholic Herald, both times for being insufficiently respectful.

    Anyway, Burrito, in my books, the Holy Spirit – or Holy Truth if you prefer – is getting blamed for too many of the shenanigans taking place in Vatican City, although it’s possible He is leading us down a distance to where we can clearly see the line in the sand on Dover Beach:

    “The Sea of Faith
    Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
    Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl’d.
    But now I only hear
    Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
    Retreating, to the breath
    Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
    And naked shingles of the world.”

  33. johnhenrycn says:

    Dover Beach (4:15 – 5:15) – a lamentation:

  34. Crow says:

    The issue is one which seems to be becoming more crystallised as the Pope becomes more dictatorial. To take issue with the actions or statements of the Pope and to scrutinise his motives, to my mind, is not a matter of disloyalty – rather, it is the opposite, when the scrutiny is based upon a comparison of his actions or statements with the principles upheld by the Church since the time of the Apostles.

    We, in Australia have lived through, and are now witnessing the repercussions of, a Royal Commission into sexual abuse, in which the Catholic Church participated to its everlasting shame. The statistics of the abuse reveal that a huge percentage were abuses of boys by men. This is a systemic abuse that occurred in my lifetime. At the time the abuses were being committed, I, myself, heard statements of the Vatican II style where it was said that priests should be sexually active as “How could a celibate person understand sexual matters?” At the time I thought they were wrong. And now I see where they led.

    Geoff Kiernan correctly distinguishes the defence of Holy Mother Church from the attack by those who wish to turn her into a different church. And, as Kathleen pointed out, the fact that the Pope voiced concern about the increase of vocations in the traditional orders certainly leads one to question his objectives.

    This is a man who is not what he seems – what he says is not in accordance with his actions. He does not speak directly and frankly and it appears that he is operating with an agenda which is never directly referred to by him. I will refer you to the article by Elizabeth Yore, “Six Scandals where the sexual abuse scandal touches Pope Francis” which was published here on 25 January 2017. There was also discussion somewhere that lobbying had been effected to obtain the vote by which he had been elected Pope (I cannot remember where I read that).

    There are two aspects of historical interest which raise a question:

    The first is the testimony of Bella Dodd regarding the infiltration of the Church. If that is true, (and I must say, I, like Toad, question why the relevant agents were not named), then there is no reason to assume that they would stop infiltrating the Church. If it is true, then the effects of Vatican II were very effective in achieving the objective of gutting the core strength of Catholicism, while leaving it with an empty and weakened facade.

    The second historical issue is the manipulation of the Church by a gay group of religious and lay people who have used the mechanisms available within the Church to their own ends.

    In this respect, and the sexual abuse scandal is evidence of this, it is apparent that one result of Vatican II was a highjacking of the Church in some significant areas by the gay lobby and paedophiles. Everybody here would be familiar with “Goodbye good men”, by Michael Rose, and I have been told by people with first-hand experience, that the same situation applied in Australia.

    There is some internet discussion about the homosexuality of Pope Paul VI. There is also mention that Cardinal Montini (as he then was), corresponded with the Soviets against the express probibition of Pope Pius XII, at a time when priests were smuggled into the Soviet Union. This was an action that had serious repercussions in regard to the safety of the priests concerned. Montini, as Pope Paul VI, implemented the most profound changes on the liturgy, in a manner which had never been done in the 2,000 year history of the Church. The Church had always allowed for change to develop organically. The Latin Mass was suppressed and the Mass developed under Pope Paul VI was applied from the top of the hierarchy.

    The prosecution of, and reaction to, abuse was extremely desultory in many instances within the Church. The only conclusion one can reach is that there must have been a significant network of paedophiles within the Church hierarchy, or, if not paedophiles, then a gay network, in which behaviour was condoned which previously would have been policed and sanctioned. It appears that the slack policing reached up to the Vatican. In scrutinising the current Pope, to my mind it is absolutely extraordinary that, at a time when the most shameful abuse has been shown to have occurred under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, and when Pope Francis himself has uttered the politically acceptable ‘zero tolerance’ platitudes to sexual abuse, he has personally effected the moving around of abusing priests and, as if to send a message to the abusers, Pope Francis personally appointed Cardinal Daneels, not to the Finance Committee, but to the Synod of the FAMILY! (Excuse the capitals – I realise they are a sign of a nut-case. I don ‘t deny that I am one BB).

    It is interesting that Pope Francis is obviously very against the Latin Mass and traditional orders, although he says it in a disingenuous way. Why is this? Is he merely an old man who thinks that Vatican II Masses and attitude to Christ are modern? Or is he against the Latin Mass because it is here that the core strength of the Catholic Church resides? If it is the second, then we may be in for a rough ride.

    That is, is this merely a political question where us curmudgeon conservatives disagree with the enlightened modernist? Or are we seeing someone who is implementing something more directed to a specific objective?

  35. geoffkiernan says:

    On Cue…. We in Western Australia have just woken to Headlines in the State Newspaper…
    “WA Worst for Catholic Church Paedophiles- Evil Heart of abuse” -: The Western Australian Newspaper dated Friday the 17th Feb 2017.
    The comments by Crow are both timely and pertinent.
    As for Danneels appointment to the Synod of the Family, I must also confess to being a nut case.
    Double speak is a devastating weapon that is employed by too many in the Church today. Their motives are plain and for every one to see. That weapon when coupled with half baked and ill formed arguments is doubly devastating.
    ‘Goodbye Good men’ is shattering in its consequences.

  36. toadspittle says:

    Now we are getting to the nub of the matter, re: Francis.
    “The second historical issue is the manipulation of the Church by a gay group of religious and lay people who have used the mechanisms available within the Church to their own ends.”
    ..says Crow – and I suspect it could bee true – what might their ends be? Surely not to destroy it, as some appear to suggest. What use would that be to them?
    “Their motives are plain and for every one to see.”
    …says Geoff. Not by me. What are their motives?

  37. kathleen says:

    Toad,

    Since the dawn of time, the desire of the Evil One has been to destroy the work of God.

    We read in Genesis that when God looked upon His Creation – culminating in the creation of Man made in His own Image and Likeness, provided for him and put Him in charge of caring for His world (Gen. 1:26-29) – God saw that it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31).
    But as we have often explained before, Man is not a robot! Man (like the angelic realm preceding him) has this unique gift of being able to communicate with his Creator, and so had to be given free choice (his fiat) to love and obey God, and also the freedom to renounce this gift (non serviam). Our first parents at first renounced their obedience to God; thus sin entered the world. Despite their repentance, God’s forgiveness, and their return to God’s favour, their new knowledge of Good and Evil destroyed their previous joy and innocence and that of all their descendants, and closed the doors to Heaven, Man’s true home. This, of course, is what we call Original Sin.
    God did not abandon His beloved children to die the eternal death deserved by our sins, and as promised from the beginning, He sent us His Only-begotten Son and Saviour to destroy sin and death, and to open the doors of Heaven for those who love God and sincerely repent of their sins.

    Well, I know you are well aware of all this, the history of Mankind, but you appear to be unable to follow it through to understand the next step.
    Evil is now in the world; the Devil (the fallen Angel) has got a foothold into Man’s heart to lead him away from God. He who was once full of love and light, and who through his formidable and unmoving pride became hate and darkness, lost Heaven forever. He therefore desires the same fate for us; through his “snares and wiles” he tries to grab as many souls as possible from eternal bliss in God’s Presence. But he is a spirit without bodily form; his most effective way of leading men astray is through other men who are already in his clutches!

    Those who have submitted themselves to the Devil’s false promises have even managed successfully to infiltrate the Catholic Church! The Devil’s minions are legion, but their gathering into groups like the Freemasons (bitter enemies of the Catholic Church whose unshakable doctrines thwart the masons’ desire to create a One World Religion) and the proponents of the Homosexual agenda (a.k.a. ‘The Lavender Mafia’, or the ‘LGBT lobby’) who want the vile and ungodly sin of sodomy to be accepted as normal, means that as groups working together to bring others down, they are stronger!

    That is why we are suffering such treachery and confusion in the Church today; the Enemy of our souls has worked its way up to the highest echelons of Holy Bride of Christ! We are at war, a spiritual war, far more dangerous to our eternal salvation than any man-made war!

  38. mmvc says:

    Thank you for your insightful comments, Crow.

    Here’s another revelation which suggests that V2 lead to the highjacking of the Church by the gay lobby:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-player-at-vatican-ii-confesses-to-concealing-homosexual-sex-life

  39. toadspittle says:

    Kathleen – the problem is pre-determininism, isn’t it? We are asked to believe that God, who knew from eternity that when He created man – man was going to sin. And yet He created us anyway.
    How, then, can God become “sad,” or “angry,” at what was a foregone conclusion to Him?
    How could He create people He knew were going to end up damned for all eternity? Wouldn’t it have been more loving not to do so in the first place? I wouldn’t create such unfortunate creatures.
    Maybe you would.

    Yes, I know I my dogs don’t have Free Will. But, even if they had, I would have no qualms in overriding it every time it was necessary to save them from grief – same as we all do (or should) with our own children – even those mature enough to have Free Will of their own.
    We do not willingly permit our children to do anything that would hurt themselves, even slightly, if we can prevent it – by brute force if necessary.
    “Boring old stuff. We’ve explained this hundreds of times before, Toad.”
    No, you haven’t. Not in any satisfactory fashion.

  40. Bill Erholt says:

    As I read these many comments, I am not disallusioned, not deterred and fall back on my trust in God, Holy Spirit, Jesus and Mary.

  41. toadspittle says:

    “Since the dawn of time, the desire of the Evil One has been to destroy the work of God.”
    And yet God knew that would be the case before the Dawn of Time – long before He created the Evil One. And God seems to permit the Devil to do pretty much whatever he wants. Why?
    God makes odd deals with Satan, occasionally – giving him a century break and so on. Why?
    Would we? Would you? Not me. Would you do a deal with the Devil? God does (or so we are “reliably” told by a pope.)
    …So why should God get upset about the inevitable results, as it is all clearly existentially unnecessary, anyway?
    In short what is the point of life at all as defined by these aspects of Catholicism?
    (“What an absurd question, even from you, Toad!”

  42. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 17:03

    All men are given a certain amount of talents at birth. With these, whether one or many, we must use them to work out our salvation. (N.B., you were given a good share too, as were all those raised in the True Faith!) We will be judged accordingly, always remembering Our Blessed Lord’s warning that: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” – (Luke 22:48).

    You are clearly troubled by the heresy of Predestination, a form of religious Determinism. You’ll have to look this up and work on the Catholic responses and advice yourself I’m afraid, Toad. It would take far too long to give you a full response here.
    Just remember though: we have Free Will. God may know whether we will end up in Heaven or Hell…. But we don’t! 😉

  43. Crow says:

    Thank you mmvc – from this article it is apparent that the interaction between the loosening up of morals that occurred in the 1960’s and 70’s, together with the protestantisation of Vat II allowed people to get a foothold into manipulating the Church teaching and twisting the moral emphasis so that the balance was distorted. GK Chesterton (I think, or Hilaire Belloc), called communism a ‘heresy, as it takes one aspect of Catholicism, ‘all men are equal’ and hammers it without regard to the other balancing factors present in Catholicism. The priest in this article did much the same thing, taking principles of Catholic doctrine and using them, without the balancing factors (ie., the concept of mortal sin and obedience to God’s law, the concept of humility). The cumulative effect of these distortions, coupled with a change in the liturgy, led to a weakening of the dogma. To be sure, it was not universal and indeed, was only in a small area, bearing in mind the population of the Chuurch, but you can see from the abuse scandals the destruction that can be wreaked by a minority. You can see from the language used by Father Rosica in the article, there was an adoption of the Protestant style of language, of personalising Jesus and conveying that Jesus is always with us and loves sinners. This is true, but there was no mention of the Jesus who drove the moneylenders from the temple or who said ‘Go and sin no more’. As CS Lewis pointed out, the Jesus these people talk about is so ineffectual, they would not have bothered crucifying him! The adoption of the Protestant style of liturgy has resulted in a watering down of catechesis to the young – a weakening of defences generally throughout the church.

    The very next link is to an article on the appointment by Pope Francis of an ‘outspoken proponent of homosexuality’, Dominican priest Father Timothy Radcliffe, as consultor to the Vatican Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Father Radcliffe is openly supportive of homosexuality, saying that it is expressive ‘of Christ’s self’ (an example of the twisting of the truths of the Catholic faith – Jesus loves us, God made us this way, therefore we do want we want). He also said that homosexuality should not be a bar to the priesthood, but rather (in the familiar language of tolerance that the gays employ), ‘those who oppose it should be banned.’

    Bearing in mind the desecration of the Church that has been effected by the homosexual activity of priests and teachers with the sexual abuse scandals, the fact that Pope Francis has given an implicit seal of approval to this man, while punishing the conservatives, sends what type of message to the Church?

    Mind you, despite the statistics and the evidence before our eyes, at least in Australia, the connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is never mentioned by a brainwashed public and a propaganda-oriented media. Indeed, if the link is ever drawn, it is immediately qualified as ‘not representative of the gay culture’. This is true, but the fact that it is definitely an aspect of gay culture is never said, as the gay culture has capitalised on its status as victim to such a degree that a silence prevails on certain code sentiments (ie., anything that might be construed as ‘homophobic’.)

    This brings us back to the dislike of Pope Francis for the traditional rite and the traditional orders. It is interesting that, in dismissing them, he uses the language mentioned by Michael Rose in “Goodbye good men” of “rigid” etc.
    It makes me look at the power of the Latin Mass with more clarity – to my mind, it is becoming clear that the defences are exactly where the enemy points them out!

  44. mmvc says:

    ‘Mind you, despite the statistics and the evidence before our eyes, at least in Australia, the connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is never mentioned by a brainwashed public and a propaganda-oriented media.’

    Crow, I think you’ll find that the same applies to Europe and the US. After years of research, a Polish priest, Fr Dariusz Oko, compiled his findings on what he refers to as the Homoheresy into a harrowing but very thorough report. Here’s an extract from his text which ties in with your observations about the link between homosexuality and the abuse scandals in the Church:

    A GLOBAL PHENOMENON

    We should first expose the common lie presented by the media. They keep talking about paedophilia among clergymen, while it is most often the case that the problem is ephebophilia, which is a perversion consisting in adult homosexual men being attracted not to children, but to pubescent and adolescent boys. It is a typical deviation related to homosexuality. Basic knowledge about that reality includes the fact that more than 80 percent of cases involving sexual abuse by clergymen reported in the U.S.A. were cases of ephebophilia, not paedophilia[4]! That fact has been carefully hidden and ignored, as it reveals particularly well the hypocrisy of the homolobby in both the world and the Church. It is all the more important that it be exposed.
    In other countries, the situation is similar, it is therefore important to note that scandals involving sexual abuse which have shaken the global Church were mostly the work of homosexual clergymen. The Church has paid a very painful price for the tremendous offences which have been exposed, losing much of its credibility. This has caused dramatic difficulties both in spiritual and material terms in many dioceses, monasteries and seminaries, with churches becoming empty in entire provinces of the Church.[5] It is estimated that the Church in the U.S.A. has had to pay more than one and a half billion dollars in damages so far[6]. None of that would have been possible without the existence of a significant underground, of which prosecutors usually reveal only a small part, the tip of the iceberg.

    Again thank you for your thoughts on the article I linked to. I also agree with what you say about the TLM. My own relatively recent experience and appreciation of its transcendent beauty and power has also helped me to understand why the adversary and his minions are hell-bent on attacking the Mass of Ages and destroying traditional orders.

  45. toadspittle says:

    “We should first expose the common lie presented by the media. They keep talking about paedophilia among clergymen, while it is most often the case that the problem is ephebophilia, which is a perversion consisting in adult homosexual men being attracted not to children, but to pubescent and adolescent boys.”
    It is not a “common lie.” The media talks about “paedophilia” because they, and their readers – anyone sensible in fact – doesn’t make a distinction between that and “ephebophilia,” which only a few specialists have ever heard of. (I never have, and I’m fairly well-read.) This is nit-picking on an industrial scale – presumably to avoid the real issue.

    “…more than 80 percent of cases involving sexual abuse by clergymen reported in the U.S.A. were cases of ephebophilia, not paedophilia! “
    So what? It’s all sin, isn’t it?

    “This brings us back to the dislike of Pope Francis for the traditional rite and the traditional orders.”
    Agreed. This seems to be the case, as far as we can see. Maybe Francis has a point, maybe not. He clearly has a big difference of opinion with the Trads – thinks they have got it all wrong and are holding the Church back as he tries to drag it, kicking and screaming, into the 20th Century.*
    Still. takes all sorts, dunnit? And, as we frequently used to opine in the Loony Media, “What’s the point in being the boss, if you can’t muck people about?”

    *Yes, not the 21st – that would be going too far.

  46. toadspittle says:

    “You’ll have to look this up and work on the Catholic responses and advice yourself I’m afraid, Toad.”
    Well, Kathleen I duly took you at your word – and found this:

    https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/predestination

    From which I extracted this paragraph:
    “In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination a “hidden mystery”. That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbor? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully cooperated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): “Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei” (the judgments of God are inscrutable)
    (My emphases in bold, by the way.)

    ..So predestination is an “inscrutable mystery.” A lot of obfuscation and flannel, in fact. Laboriously explaining “what,” but not “how,” or “why.” They haven’t got a clue, clearly.
    That won’t do for me. How could it? It’s not a rational explanation, and that’s what any reasonable person requires before accepting any such premise.
    Why should anyone subscribe to a belief system containing such mysterious and flimsy foundations?
    …Might as well believe in astrology.
    In fact, although the above refers to baptism, I ‘d also like to know why God bothered creating the Devil – and then letting him run amok – in the first place.
    Couldn’t find any answer to that. Another “inscrutable mystery,” no doubt. It won’t do. For me.

  47. Tom Fisher says:

    @ mmvc re your comment of February 13, 2017 at 19:47

    Thanks for taking my comment into consideration, and for adjusting the heading.

  48. Tom Fisher says:

    @ JH re your video posted February 16, 2017 at 22:07.

    The video in question uses ‘comic sans’ in the ‘subtitles’. That is hard to forgive

  49. Tom Fisher says:

    I tire of defending Pope Francis, not because he is not worth defending, but because my words fall upon deaf ears.

    BB, just say what you think is right, and don’t concern yourself too much with the ears your words may fall upon.

  50. toadspittle says:

    “The video in question uses ‘comic sans’ in the ‘subtitles’. That is hard to forgive…”

    Better than this, though, Tom.
    https://www.fonts.com/font/monotype/monotype-bodoni/ultra-bold-italic

  51. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 02:16

    Apologies for the long delay in “approving” your recent comments; they somehow got overlooked until I “released” them from pre-moderation a few minutes ago.

    There is a difference between Ephebophilia and Paedophilia, Toad, due to the greater vulnerability of innocent children who have not yet reached puberty. The dictionary describes the former as:
    “Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.”
    Thus Paedophilia is even worse! A mere child is susceptible to an even greater trauma when their little person is so vilely assaulted in this way by an adult in whom they had put their trust.

    Yes, most certainly they are both very grave “sins” indeed of course, that transgress the purity, innocence, integrity and well-being of a minor. The scandal, and sometimes the tragic inability of the young victim to ever totally recover from this assault, makes it one of the most heinous of crimes. If the perpetrator is a priest or religious, this can often cause the victim to lose their faith forever…. A terrible and tragic consequence of this crime.
    It is the sin Our Lord warned about in no uncertain terms!

    —–

    P.S. Pope Francis wants to bring the Church into the 20th Century, you say? Wot dat mean?? 😉

    “We do not want, as the newspapers say, a Church that will move with the world. We want a Church that will move the world.”
    (G.K. Chesterton, in response to a newspaper suggestion that the Church ought to “move with the times”!)

  52. toadspittle says:

    “P.S. Pope Francis wants to bring the Church into the 20th Century, you say? Wot dat mean?? 😉”
    We can only hazard guesses, as we both agree, Kathleen. He seems to mean “modernising” it- cutting out much of the venerable, lacy, gold-embroidered, smells and bells stuff – as we all seem to agree on CP&S.
    The question is, does The Church need modernising?
    Far from me to venture an opinion.
    Not my province.
    [Following sentence removed by a moderator. Well you have been warned Toad.]
    …However, I am from Moratinos.
    I know nothing.
    But Francis is doing the dusting, regardless. That much is clear.
    …And it’s fun to watch from a distance. So far, at least,
    .As long as you don’t take any of it seriously.

  53. Tom Fisher says:

    If someone as humane and faithful as BB feels alienated, something has gone wrong.

  54. kathleen says:

    No one has “alienated” BB, Tom; due to a differing outlook on today’s betrayals within the heart of the hierarchy, he has chosen to alienate himself from us. We still love him dearly, despite the fact that his increasingly progressive views contradict those of the rest of the team, who are of a more traditional persuasion.

    And to be “traditional” is to be “faithful”, by the way (sinners though we all are). Yet must we not be always on guard, come what may, “standing firm in the faith“? Even if the “roaring lion” in disguise, who has wangled his way into the Church, tries to force another and false doctrine upon us, do we not have a command from Christ to resist?

  55. Tom Fisher says:

    I don’t pretend to understand the interpersonal situation, but if the blog has lost BB, it has suffered a significant loss. It remains an excellent blog. I don’t think his views were ‘increasingly progressive’. I think BB’s support for Pope Francis has led to him being increasingly isolated. But that is not the same thing.

  56. kathleen says:

    Yes, well, he had also resorted to bashing traditional Catholics, even holy Card. Burke, and making some pretty unkind accusations, which surprised us. However the doors are always open for him to return if he so wishes. We didn’t want him to go. 😔

  57. toadspittle says:

    Well, yes – and we can always moderate the bejesus out of the lad.

    “And to be “traditional” is to be “faithful”, by the way..”

    I’m reminded again of Churchill, who, when told in Parliament that one of his prpposals was, “against the traditions of the Royal Navy,” answered , “The traditions of the Royal Navy, Sir- are rum, sodomy and the lash.” (insert smiley face)

  58. The Pew At The Back says:

    I have it on good authority from ole Squint Eye as he murmered into my shell-like that he is not yet a gonner but was measured for wings and a harp at Xmas. However, like Barabbas, he ‘got orf wiv’ it’. . Like many tottering old folk, he thinks things were better way back in 2011, when you could speak your mind and still have enough change left for a bag of chips. He is surprised to see Toad staggering on here and increasingly resembling Saint Sebastien.

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