Taking Issue with Pope Francis’ Perceived Aversion to Tradition

imageCP&S Comment:

We have decided to make a separate post in order to give everyone a chance of reading the very interesting and insightful comment from ‘Crow‘, one of our regular CP&S visitors. Crow’s comment was originally entered on the post, ‘Pope Francis is at peace with Vatican corruption but worries over young and traditional vocations‘, and in her comment she refers to other people’s comments below the article. (Please go there to read follow-up ones.)


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?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Taking Issue with Pope Francis’ Perceived Aversion to Tradition

  1. To answer the question at the end of the essay: yes, we are “seeing someone who is implementing something more directed to a specific objective.” Whatever Bergoglio may think that objective is, it will result – whether he understands it or not – in the increasing devastation of the Church, until it is reduced to the size of the proverbial mustard seed. From that seed, though, God will bring forth a newer and more splendid Church.

  2. marysong says:

    Bella Dodd refrained from mentioning anything about the Communist Infiltration into the Catholic Church in her 1954 book ‘School of Darkness’ , according to an interview given by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, (her friend) to International News Analysis Today July 28, 2003, that her omission was at the request of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, the person responsible for bringing Dodd back into the Roman Catholic Church. http:www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-135.html p.20 of a lengthy article: Welcome to The Catholic Mass. Why would Bishop Sheen do this? I can only guess that perhaps he was trying to deflect harm from his convert for a time. She was emotionally distraught at the treatment she was receiving psychologically from the press due to her defection from the Communist party. Bishop Sheen was strongly anti Communist as his wonderful TV programs prove. I remember him every Sunday night. My husband of 60 years (now in the palm of God) and I used to watch him.

    I cannot help but wonder about the role of our present Pontiff and whether it fits into the Apocalypse of St. John. Chapter XIII V. 11;15

    I do believe that we are indeed “in for a rough ride”

  3. mmvc says:

    From that seed, though, God will bring forth a newer and more splendid Church.

    It’s so important for us to hold onto that hope, Robert. Perhaps that seed is the remnant, the smaller and purer Church Pope Benedict spoke of. I sometimes hear or read about people leaving or delaying joining the Church because of the turmoil and confusion of this pontificate. If only they recognised that these times of trial, this Passion and Crucifixion of the Church, will one day lead to its glorious Resurrection.

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    MMVC says: “Perhaps that seed is the remnant, the smaller and purer Church…”

    I can live with that – perhaps even hope for it if what we have now is the alternative. Earlier today on my second favourite Catholic blog, I quoted (second hand) the wisdom of Anglo-Catholic, T.S. Eliot:
    “There are no lost causes because there are no won causes. We have no right to expect to win anything in this world; all we can do is bear witness.”

  5. kathleen says:

    marysong @ 00:30

    You bring up an interesting question (re Bella Dodd and Ven. Fulton Sheen) asking why Bella Dodd later avoided discussing the sinister Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church to bring about Her downfall from within, and which she herself had worked on! Her revelations had shocked the world and brought out into the open the true evil of Communism, something the majority were still naively unaware. Perhaps, as you suggest, ++Sheen, who had no doubts about the Satanical mindset intrinsic to Communism, wanted to protect Dodd from exposing her to any further dangers from Communist agents! She was indeed psychologically traumatised too from the storm of criticism she was receiving since her defection from Communism; Communist sympathisers abound everywhere.

    I have just been listening to the replay of this week’s “World Over Live” with Raymond Arroyo. He was interviewing Chinese Cardinal Zen about the complicated issues for the Catholic Church in China with the Holy See. It’s a MUST watch!

    You say: “I cannot help but wonder about the role of our present Pontiff and whether it fits into the Apocalypse of St. John. Chapter XIII V. 11;15

    VERY interesting!

  6. I apologise in advance that this is a bit long but I felt that it was necessary to treat this seriously even although I did not feel it deserved it for I cannot agree that Crow’s contribution is in any way “insightful”. He writes: “There is some internet discussion about the homosexuality of Pope Paul VI.” So there is no doubt about it, is there? Pope Paul VI WAS a homosexual? Well I for one sincerely doubt that very much. Or, did Crow merely express himself poorly? Did he mean to say that there is or has been “some internet discussion, principally amongst and between ‘sede vacantists’ about the ALLEGED homosexuality of Paul VI”?

    That sentence is followed by: “There is also mention that Cardinal Montini (as he then was), corresponded with the Soviets against the express probibition (sic) 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.”

    In relation to this, it has to be said that the statement that Montini was a Cardinal— “as he then was” — at the material time is about as egregious an error as someone wishing to be taken seriously in a Catholic forum could make. During the pontificate of Pius XII, Montini was never a Cardinal having, together with Mgr Domenico Tardini, famously declined the red hat offered by Pius XII towards the end of November in 1952, prior to the consistory of January 12, 1953. Montini was created cardinal by Good Pope John at his first consistory, on December 15, 1958 and, indeed, was first on the list.

    Montini and Tardini’s refusal of the red hats is also relevant to the averment that Montini was in secret communication — for how could it have been otherwise if Pius XII had prohibited such? — with the Soviets. I am only aware of this nonsensical allegation having been made by proponents of the preposterous “Siri Thesis”. Preposterous? I give but one of their stupidities: “He (Cardinal Siri) was Pius XII’s chosen successor.” Apparently nobody has told them that Pope’s do not have the right to nominate, or even seek to suggest, their successor. Pius XII had, like so many of his predecessors, and successors, faults aplenty but he was ignorant of neither history nor canon law.

    Moreover, whilst Montini, as “sostituto”, the Substitute of the Secretariat of State and Secretary for General Affairs, was concerned with the appointment of Apostolic Nuncios and Delegates, he had nothing to do with the Holy See’s relations with governments, including and especially the Soviets, and international bodies. That responsibility came within the purview of Mgr Tardini, initially as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Holy See but then later (as of November 29, 1952) as Pro-Secretary of State. Tardini was also President of the Pontifical Commission for Russia from the time his appointment as Secretary for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs on December 16, 1937.

    I rather think that the origins of this particular libel against Montini lie in the role played by Pacelli when he was Nuncio to Germany in the 1920s. Originally he had been nominated as his point man for relations with the Soviets by Pope Pius XI. Pacelli’s negotiations and communications with the Soviets, and in particular with Giorgi Chicherin, were of necessity conducted in secret. Eventually, Pius XI ordered all contact to be broken off. It was then that Fr. Michel-Joseph Bourguignon d’Herbigny SJ, who had been President of the Pontifical Oriental Institute from 1922 until February 11, 1926, was secretly named by Pope Pius XI as the first President of the Pontifical Commission for Russia. In the next month, on March 29, he was, again secretly, consecrated bishop in Berlin by Archbishop Pacelli before going to Russia to try to clandestinely re-establish a Catholic hierarchy. This affair ended tragically.

    Crow “insightful”? I think not. And that is without even going on to consider his reference to Bella Dodd. 1100 communists into US seminaries in the 1930s? Four card carrying cardinals in the Vatican? Don’t make me laugh. And lest you think me naive in the matter, my much loved granda was an active local NUM official in the pits and was a founding member of the Communist Party in Lanarkshire in the early 20th century.

  7. marysong says:

    Hello Kathleen, Poor Cardinal Zen! He needs our prayers! I fear for his ‘disappearance’ … like Cardinal Kung. A few generations of Chinese people have been born since the devastation of Our Lady of Consolation Abby, and, the almost total extinction of Her priests and brothers by the Chinese Communists. The tortures, the ‘struggles’, the bloodshed, and then the death march … through frozen mountains with threadbare habits … some shoeless. I believe that the underlying diabolical belief system of Marx/Engels is still present in these Chinese Communist leaders, more sophisticated now.

    The CD was intriguing. As Cardinal Zen said: ” The Pope may have some sympathy for the Communists because he doesn’t know the totalitarian regime” Cardinal Zen spoke the best he could on TV. I think the Pope does know the regime. As Cardinal Zen said: “The national church is schismatic” Brave Cardinal! He said it “is not really the Catholic Church” I must add that it is an abomination before God … a high blasphemy. Surely if I, an old Catholic laywoman, can think such a thought the Pope can.

  8. marysong says:

    Hello again, Kathleen,
    Our Lady of Consolation was a Trappist Abbey utterly destroyed by the Chinese Communists in 1947 at Yangjiaping what they went through is heartbreaking http://www.catholicworldreport.com/item/2325/chinas_modern_martyrs_from_mao_to_now.aspx

  9. kathleen says:

    @ Marysong

    Thanks for that informative link. Very scary… and sad!
    Yes, you are quite right! It is truly a great tragedy for the millions of faithful Chinese Catholics in the Underground Church, who are suffering greatly for their loyalty to Christ’s Church, that the current Pope is so blatantly naive about the dangers of the “underlying diabolical belief system of Marx/Engels” (as you put it so well). It is a mistake many people in the West make; they see Communism as just another political faction, comparable to all the others (and for some so-called Communists themselves who do not live under totalitarian regimes, it is indeed just that!)
    But for those with experience of the evil, cruelty and hypocrisy inherent in this diabolical ideology, shout dire warnings to ignorant Westerners who believe it to be harmless; if only they were heeded!

    In 1917 Our Lady of Fatima told us through the little visionaries that Russia (meaning Communism that was about to take hold of it) would “spread her errors” over the whole world. That is exactly what we are seeing today in our secular, socialist, materialistic culture … but the name “Communism” with its somewhat negative connotations is not usually used to describe them!

    They must be “champing at the bit” with first Putin, and now Trump, putting spokes in the wheels of their plans for a One World Order! 🙂

  10. Crow says:

    Thank you for your detailed corrections and contribution. This site is a valuable forum for debate. I was attempting to pose a question.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s