Insider Coup?

Thursday, March 9, AD 2017

 

 

We are four years down the road and Pope Benedict, who allegedly resigned from the papacy in February 2013 for health reasons, is still alive and kicking, and the mystery surrounding his abrupt resignation remains as deep as ever:

Archbishop Luigi Negri who says he has visited Pope Benedict “several times” since his resignation in 2013, is the only Italian bishop to have ever participated in the annual pro-life march in Rome. Negri resigned as archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio in February after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75.

In an article published Monday by news outlet Rimini 2.0, Archbishop Negri said that while he has little knowledge of the inner workings of the Curia, “I am certain that the truth will emerge one day showing grave liability both inside and outside the Vatican.”

“It is no coincidence that in America, even on the basis of what has been published by Wikileaks, some Catholic groups have asked President Trump to open a commission of inquiry to investigate whether the administration of Barack Obama exerted pressure on Benedict,” he said. It remains shrouded in mystery for now, he said, “but I am sure that those responsible will be found out.”

Concluding the point, he said that as he approaches his death the first question he will ask St. Peter will be “exactly about this issue.”

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Insider Coup?

  • Here’s the letter from certain conservative Catholics to President Trump:

    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3001-did-vatican-attempt-to-influence-u-s-election-catholics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate

    Yes, I firmly believe that heretics in the Church and the Democratic Party are in alliance.

  • I’m thinking President Trump will have eight years . . .

  • Dear Benedict’s closest relatives apart from his nonagenarian brother are in Australia. I do wish someone would spirit him out of the Vatican and into their home.

  • This is most likely true and I wish more Catholics would face this and also since he still wears the white and carries still the Papal titles that means HE is still the only valid Pope NOT FRANCIS who was canvassed at the so called 2013 Conclave.

  • Politics of the Paranoid Catholic Style?

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: The Big Wheel’s Turning Against False Francis – The Stumbling Block
  • “Politics of the Paranoid Catholic Style?”

    “Politics of the Paranoid Catholic Style?” Smears are weak and are not rebuttal, Ernst.

  • If it truly wasn’t for health reasons, and he was “forced” out, than it calls into question Francis’ election. A prelate can’t be forced out of office. If Cardinal Ratzinger was forced out, he would still be Pope and Francis would be an anti-Pope and what a mess we would be in.

  • If it was blackmail, what did Pope Benedict do or fail to that would make him susceptible to blackmail?

  • Who might that be? And how could that make the pope so susceptible to blackmail that he would abdicate the papacy?

  • His brother is a decided possibility.

  • What about his brother Msgr. Georg Ratzinger is blackmailible? The Regensberg boys choir sex abuse scandal? That news is already out there. Surprisingly, it got little press attention. He was not accused of being involved, but accused of knowing about it not coming forward.

    The reason Benedict himself gave which cited lack of strength (I don’t remember health being explicitly cited), is more plausible at this juncture than that he was blackmailed.

  • Circumstantial evidence points to a conspiracy to replace Benedict with Francis. In my opinion all of this is a coalescence of evil pointing towards the Second Coming. The most probative piece of evidence is the heretical and unsaintly way Pope Francis acts.

  • “The Regensberg boys choir sex abuse scandal?”

    Which may only have been the tip of an iceberg. He admitted to slapping boys in the choir for disciplinary purposes, and it has been charged that since he ran the choir for three decades he had to know what was going on. I have long thought that his Sergeant Schultz imitation, “I knew nothing, nothing!” is implausible. He and his younger brother have been close all his life. The idea of blackmail being involved was raised at the time of the resignation:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/21/pope-retired-amid-gay-bishop-blackmail-inquiry

    It made no sense to me at the time, but I could imagine a gay Cardinal fighting back by producing evidence privately to the Pope about his beloved brother and how it would be a shame if in moving against him and his friends it would be necessary to reveal his brother’s involvement.

  • But again, none of this made any real splash in the media when it came out. Hardly blackmail that would cause him to abdicate the papacy.

  • The essence of blackmail is to keep it secret unless the target of blackmail does not do what the blackmailer wants.

    This is speculation of course, but the reason given by Pope Benedict for his abdication, especially of such an abrupt nature, simply does not make sense.

  • It’s 1380 again. We’ve got a pope that no one likes, and people are looking for an excuse to believe he’s not really the pope. This doesn’t end well.

  • @Pinky

    I ask myself; What’s changed?

    Why this merciful gesture now?
    Merciful in the eyes of the divorced only if the condemnation falls on whom if indeed Christ didn’t tell PF to open a path? Then the taking of Holy Communion unworthily is falling on whom…The partakers of Holy Communion? If God is the same yesterday today and forever, then Jesus did not alter the doctrine, none of the Holy Trinity.

    So why now?

    Leaving it up to folks own conscience is new. Formed or lack of formation, there seems to be a gargantuan risk. Not only for the recipient, but for priests who use Chpt.8 to pastor the fringe.

    My guess is that it will fall on the current Pope who opened this can of worms.

    How will it end?

  • The papal schism did more to “cause” the reformation than anything that Luther did. The roots of that lay in a famous Coup, where Boniface VIII forced his predecessor to resign. Francis reminds me far more of Boniface VIII than of St. Francis.

  • Philip Nachazel – We can question a statement or practice; we can even question the theology behind it. To question whether the Pope really is the Pope is a dark path, both intellectually and spiritually. It’s not like this has never happened before. It happens a lot, and it always leads to division. Functionally it’s indistinguishable from Protestantism.

  • If he was pressured or blackmailed in some way, I think the persons he was trying to protect is us. He might have known stuff about conclaves, Paul VI. John Paul the First’s death, and had come to a clearer understanding of what happened with the many wolves in sheeps clothing who were the men behind the curtain after Vat II. He may have come to realize he had been naive. He knew all that would cause such a loss of faith among the Catholic people of the world that he just didn’t want the lid to blow off… for our sakes. and Daneels etal would have been happy to have the lid go sky high. I think B16 wanted to protect us from knowing all the unholy stuff.

  • I agree with Pinky in this instance. Speculating on whether the Pope is really the Pope or if the Emeritus Pope is really the Pope or whether we’re without a Supreme Pontiff is going to make people crazy.

  • Pinky.
    Thanks.
    I wasn’t going down that path.
    Speculation on his motives is second to the claim of anti-pope Francis.
    No claims..just speculation and reading tea leaves.

    Until Pope Emeritus speaks of hostile threats and concrete crimes we just guess at the retirement move.

    Intervention from above save us from evil.

  • Francis reminds me far more of Boniface VIII than of St. Francis.

    IIRc, Boniface was a canon lawyer and curial official, which does not describe Francis.

    He might have known stuff about conclaves, Paul VI. John Paul the First’s death, a

    Wagers what he knew of John Paul I’s death was that a 65 year old cigarette smoker had a heart attack.

  • Art Deco.

    Holy Smokes.
    Those were the days of “doctor approved,” smoking…”more Doctors smoke Camel’s than any other cigarette.”

    Truth in advertising is a funny game.
    Seems the same game is going on now, in our Church leadership and it’s claims of mercy.

    Same game…. Different ad agencies.

  • Holy Smokes.
    Those were the days of “doctor approved,” smoking…”more Doctors smoke Camel’s than any other cigarette.”

    No clue about Italy. Any such advertisements in the U.S. would have disappeared ca. 1966 if not earlier.

    The last physician I can recall knowing whom was known to smoke cigarettes died around about 1976.

  • It’s the old story being played out again.

    The authority is used as creditable testimony. Regardless of the claim the facts are blurred in order to achieve goal. What is the goal of the Vatican?
    Save souls from hell? Increase revenues? The pitch man is the authority for many who are believing that his words are gold. Doctors in the 40’s thru the 60’s had a god like mystique. I recall the idea of getting a second opinion as being something no one would do in those years. The trust in your family Doctor was almost sacred.

    If the Church authority is promoting green think or communion for those living in certain union’s, then one wonders what is being sold, why and to what harm it might cause in the future.
    Similar to cigarette smoking a few decades back.

  • If the Church authority is promoting green think or communion for those living in certain union’s, then one wonders what is being sold, why and to what harm it might cause in the future.
    Similar to cigarette smoking a few decades back.

    At the time of the Cippolone case, a dear friend of ours (born in 1908, died in 2001, a cigarette smoker all her adult life) told me that in popular culture it had never been considered a healthy habit: “we called ’em ‘coffin nails’. Her personal memories would have covered almost the entire period of time that cigarettes were a commonly used consumer product.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Celebrating the Worst

Thursday, March 9, AD 2017

 

 

Pope Francis is a big fan of the late Father Bernard Haring.  Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture explains what that tells us:

The era to which Pope Francis referred when he acclaimed the work of Bernard Häring, was the period which morphed quickly into and encompassed the 1960s and 1970s. Fr. Häring, as I learned very quickly (and quite on my own) as soon as I went off to college in 1966, was one of the ringleaders of the so-called “new morality” (which was adopted with far more enthusiasm than the new math, and at about the same time). He was hardly breathing new life into moral theology. Instead, he was stripping it of its relationship to Divine Revelation—the very thing which makes authentic Christian theology possible in the first place. Bernard Häring and thousands like him, from Hans Küng to Charles Curran, sought not God but professional relevance in a faithless world. Refusing to be constrained by what Our Lord had revealed and His Church had defined, they claimed instead that the Holy Spirit enabled the fairly cohesive fraternity of academic “experts” alone to discern the real truth.

It goes without saying that the Holy Spirit was widely applauded for teaching what the secular world had already discovered! Häring himself was among the most vocal dissenters from infallible Catholic teaching such as the deep truths authoritatively set forth during his own professional life in Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI and in Veritatis Splendor by Pope John Paul II. His utter ruin as a Catholic thinker is so obvious that, however one interprets his motives (and I grant that only God can know them perfectly), we are forced to conclude that anyone who would praise him as one of the first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century must be ignorant, confused, or subversive.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Celebrating the Worst

Leave a Reply

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

Wednesday, March 8, AD 2017

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes the hostility that much of the contemporary left has to freedom of speech for those who have the temerity to disagree with them:

 

Is illustrated here:

Yep.  My older boys have already run into this.  The idea that ‘you don’t have a right to offend me.’  Uh, yes I do.  That’s freedom of speech.  Or let’s just whittle it down to mere ‘freedom.’  Sure, I can not listen, disagree, argue the point, or even show you to the door if I deem you rude or obnoxious.  But violence or, worse, calling for officials and institutions to punish wrong speak?

Growing up, Voltaire’s famous quip was the John 3:16 of American liberalism:

I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

If I heard that once, I heard that a billion times. It might be worth digging it back up and using it again.  Or more of us you might end up getting caught up in the storm, as professor Allison Stranger discovered all too well.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

  • Fruits of the Dictatorship of Relativism: Our right to speak depends on truth, a thing higher than opinions, but there is there is no truth, and therefore no commonality or reason to allow speech.

  • The funny thing is, I posted that as a throw away. Things are busy right now, and I’ve been backing down on ‘hot button’ posts. I assumed this would be a ‘yeah Dave, duh’ post. And yet we have a bold defender of the dream of censorship and intolerance we’re seeing from the modern Left.

  • I believe the notion of “repressive tolerance” can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s.

    “Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right–these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)–it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behaviour, it translates itself almost immediately into practice: the safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened.”

  • It’s easy to be a liberal. One doesn’t need to think. All one needs do is memorize a number of false assumptions/axioms/equivalencies/calumnies/non sequiturs/slogans and have the lungs to scream them.

    ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” William F. Buckley, Jr.

    I avoid interaction with liberals. However, the simple formula of how to deal (from Ann coulter) with a liberal, if you must. One, ask the numbskull to provide data, evidence, facts. Two, ask the idiot to compare the lie to rational alternatives (Compared to what?). Three, ask how much it will cost; not only fiscally, also morally, demographically, etc.

  • T.Shaw and MPS…… Thanks for the quotes. I’m actively involved in public square testimony. Our gathering last Saturday was 150 for the national Trump rally. The opposition can’t look in the mirror. William F. Buckley “they are the other views.” Spot on.
    And “word of destruction and deed of destruction.” Being played out before our very eyes. Thank you both.

  • We live in a world where much of political discourse is a species of self-congratulation and where you have an accumulation of bourbons with privileges enforced by law or guild rules. Both sorts of people tend to resent it when you present them with questions to which they cannot respond. Note, this is happening at academic institutions. The progressist conception of public life is derived from secondary school social relations.

  • I believe the notion of “repressive tolerance” can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s.

    What the ‘notion’ amounts to is a complaint by Marcuse that the man in the street doesn’t give a rip about Herbert Marcuse’s social fantasies.

  • Thank you all for these very important insights giving voice (giving a name) to our cultural condition. Only TRUTH has freedom of speech. Lies, half truths and perjury must be identified and countered to maintain a balanced society and freedom itself.
    “Voltaire’s famous quip was the John 3:16 of American liberalism:
    “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” “They will stand up to be condemned.”

  • Atheistic communism denies God and God’s image in man: free will. Atheistic communism denies freedom. Slavery denies freedom but not necessarily God and God-given free will.
    LBGT denies freedom of conscience and free will. LBGT guilts God for creating the sexual orientation of same sex attraction. LBGT guilts God for the free will choice and freedom to act out the same sex attraction through sodomy, the addiction to sex through lust and the addiction to sodomy and lesbianism. LBGT guilts God for God-given free will and the freedom to exercise free will into addiction to sodomy and lesbianism. Who can prevail in a court of law with God as his witness; with God as his judge, when the prevailing sentiment has indicted and guilted God as the cause of every evil in the world?
    Who can prevail in a court of law when God given free will and freedom are found to be the cause of addiction to sodomy and lesbianism?
    LBGT are gnostic communism. Gnostic communists are worse than atheistic communists because they take subterfuge in civil law without regard for anyone’s civil rights. Gnostic communists guilt God for their civil rights and tyrannize the people by imposing atheism on the people.

  • ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” William F. Buckley, Jr.
    Love that one, T. Shaw.

    I’m quite intolerant to bad ideas…but that doesn’t mean I try to silence them, it means that I try to destroy them, and for that to happen they’ve got to be exposed and torn to bits. You shove’m down, all you do is make ’em stronger.

  • I’m thinking about starting a line of Aaron Burr Slapping Gloves for folks what don’t take kindly to other folks what take offense at what folks have to say.

  • Ernst Schreiber……

    The gloves will lead to dueling pistols.

    The problem with the pistols is that the swine whom you just challenged can’t be trusted to walk away fifteen paces before turning around to fire.

    Back then there were gentlemen.
    Today it’s uncertain if you’re challenging a gentleman, woman trapped in a man’s body or a man who was a woman but decided to change into a man.

    Better leave the white gloves in the dresser.

  • That’s what seconds are for Philip. .Although, I suppose we could always just rough and tumble with Arkansas toothpicks

  • Or use broadswords, the weapon the long armed Lincoln chose when he was challenged for a duel. In some of his “duels” Old Hickory grabbed anything that was within reach.

  • I like the “talk softly and carry a large stick,” approach. Buford Pusser had the right stuff. Sometimes a 4×4 speaks louder than words.

  • Foxfier: Principles must be judged. People must be tolerated. A two way street.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Yes, Next Question?

Wednesday, March 8, AD 2017

 

Father Z asks if a schism exists in the Church:

 

I pay scant attention to Patheos, but for a couple contributors.  This caught my eye after a frequent commentator here alerted me.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote, with my legendary emphases and comments:

Headlines last week were proclaiming that a group of cardinals believe Pope Francis should step down to avoid a catastrophic schism in the Catholic Church.

Schism? What schism?

In fact, the modern Catholic Church is already in schism, but it is an internal schism, hidden to most people.  [He is using the term “schism” equivocally, but read on…]

The divide is very clear and yet virtually unspoken. Nobody dares to really speak of it.  [I don’t know about that.  HERE] The divide runs between cardinals. It runs between bishops and archbishops. It runs between theologians. It runs between parish priests. It runs between liturgists and catechists, church workers, musicians, teachers, journalists and writers. [All true.]

It is not really a divide between conservative and liberal, between traditionalist and progressive. [Wellll…]

[NB] It is the divide between those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Virgin born Son of God and that as the second person of the Holy and undivided Trinity established his church on earth supernaturally filled with the Holy Spirit which  would stand firm until the end of time, and those who believe otherwise. [As I read, I am acutely aware of my post about yesterday’s “Anthema” ceremony for Orthodoxy Sunday of Eastern Christians.]

Those who believe otherwise are the modernists. [Let’s also use “heretics”.] They are the ones who think the church is a human construct. It is a historic accident that occurred two thousand years ago and succeeded by a few twists of fate and a few happy circumstances. Because the believe the church is a human construct from a particular time and place, the church can and MUST adapt and change for every age and culture in which she finds herself.

This is the great divide. This is the schism which already exists.

[…]

I direct the readership’s attention to just about anything offered by Card. Kasper lately and, in particular, the incredible comments made by Card. Coccopalmerio to Edward Pentin HERE:

PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?

CARD. C: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.

Call into question the very concept of validity?  What are the implications?

Effectively, that means the obliteration of the Catholic Church.

What do libs do? They launch things out as ideas, “hypothesis”, and then they walk them back or they add “nuances”.  In the meantime the needle has been bumped a half a point in the desired direct.  Card. Kasper put some ideas out there to kick around.  Chaos ensued.  But now we have some bishops who say that the divorced and remarried can be given absolution and Communion while others don’t.  This, based on an objectively unclear papal document.  It’s surreal.  Now, Card. Coccopalmerio (as LutherFest 2017 revs up) lofts the notion that, perhaps, there are shades or, a spectrum of validity.  Maybe there isn’t really any such thing as validity.

Are there 50 Shades of Gray Validity?

Continue reading...

36 Responses to PopeWatch: Yes, Next Question?

  • Schism has a clearly defined meaning in the Code of Canon Law; “[S]chism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [schisma, subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio.] c 751

    Apart from a handful of Traditionalist and Sede Vacantist groups, there is no new schism in the Church. There has been no breach of visible communion.

  • Ah, legal definitions, my bread and butter! In their relationship to reality they frequently remind me of this quote from Lincoln:

    In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

  • Pope Francis is not to blame for the schism. He merely has allowed those who created the schism to come forward into the light, now that they think they have a Pope of their own.

    No. That would be the case if Pope Francis is a weak Pope. Pope Francis is actively promoting those pushing schism and actively rebuking and undermining those who hold to Orthodoxy. As to whether the Pope can be in schism with the Church, that is an old question that won’t be answered until he tries to make an infallible doctrine that is in contradiction with infallible doctrines in the past. For all Pope Francis’ manifest heresy, he still hasn’t crossed that bridge. In the case of Ecumenical Councils, this has been answered….Ecumenical Councils can be fallible and thus be declared false councils (e.g. Robber Council, e Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879) by a Pope.

  • The “full Communion,” will rush upon heretics that knowingly subvert the Holy Catholic Church. Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Coccopalmerio may wish to hold their tongues tightly to the roofs of their mouths. Mill stones are being made faster than the wordsmith’s can create chaos. Oh eternity! The splendor and the horrifying.

  • Mark 7:6: “He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” I suppose there have been all sorts of schisms of incomplete, imperfect, and unapologetically heretical practice and belief, from the individual on up since the beginning. A schism need not be explicit
    or formal to exist.

  • Mark 7:6: He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” Informal schism, intentional deliberate departure from defined faith and practice, has been there from the beginning. A group formally breaking off is
    not the only kind of schism, nor perhaps the most serious. It is the hidden schism of quislings, firth columnists, traitors, and Judases who rot from within, and the useful idiots that unwittingly aid and abet them. Let us not fall into facadism, trusting the pleasant appearance without is an indication of the pleasant environment within. Beware the ‘whited sepulcher’ full of dead bones.

  • Sorry for duplicate post. Thought I hadn’t successfully posted at first.

  • It appears that Pope Francis has confused the priesthood of the laity with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the ordained priesthood. In the matter of the Sacrament of Matrimony, Pope Francis is calling forth the priesthood of the laity to redefine the Sacrament of Matrimony. The priesthood of the laity a Vatican II concept must be impeccably imbued with the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, so help me God. He would be Jesus. Only the Catholic Church can remove excommunication once a person has been excommunicated. I believe Luther was excommunicated. When Pope Francis formally removes the excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers, then the conversation might begin. Up until then, Pope Francis is tormenting the faithful with absolute maybes and definite nothings.

  • As to whether the Pope can be in schism with the Church, that is an old question that won’t be answered until he tries to make an infallible doctrine that is in contradiction with infallible doctrines in the past. For all Pope Francis’ manifest heresy, he still hasn’t crossed that bridge.

    Unless & until he crosses that bridge, I don’t believe he’ll be in formal heresy either, in spite of his apparent unorthodoxy.

    Edward Peters addressed the schism question over the past weekend.

  • The opening for the schism was Vatican II which quickly resulted in SSPX and perhaps another 10-20% of Catholics who sensed the Church had lost it’s way and consequently rejected much of Protestantization taking place. Now, with Pope Francis the veil of clerical hypocrisy is being removed as we see the moral compromises being revealed in their many shades of black and gray. To me the legal formality is irrelevant. We now have a defacto schism by certain members of the clergy.

  • Not unlike the efforts to repeal obamacare, a new Pope will make a correction to chapter 8. Clarification will come. It isn’t coming from the dubia. My guess is that Pope Francis will step down. The pressure will build and become unbearable. Ego will win. Humility will not prevail. He will not address chapter 8. His health will deteriorate.

    Pray for him.

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote, “Edward Peters addressed the schism question over the past weekend.”

    Dr Peter’s conclusion: “Bottom-line: as to the specific possibility of a pope himself committing (as opposed to, Deus vetet, causing or occasioning in others) the crime of schism—I’m not seeing it.”

    That is obviously right. It follows from the decree Pastor Æternus of the First Vatican Council: “If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”

    There is an obvious corollary: those in visible communion with the Pope cannot be in schism either.

  • “There is an obvious corollary: those in visible communion with the Pope cannot be in schism either.”

    How far do you carry that MPS? Let us say that we have a Pope who denies the divinity of Christ. Would being in visible communion with such a Pope mean that no schism had occurred in the Church? If Catholics cast off allegiance to such a Pope and assembled a group of Cardinals who elected a new Pope who was orthodox, would the old Pope now be in schism or would the Catholics defending the divinity of Christ be in schism? There is much more to Catholicism than “Thus sayeth the Pope!”

  • Mr.McClarey,

    Assuming that your hypothetical pope didn’t speak in the capacity of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians (as Pope Francis has not done), then it would be impossible to justify supporting schismatic cardinals in good conscience. I would be especially weary of putting my trust in a splintering group of cardinals who elected such a man to begin with. Honorius I doesn’t become less-than-pope for running his mouth nor Benedict IX for being profligate and a disgrace to the chair.

  • I quite agree with Mr. Dowd. “Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven especially those in the MOST need of they mercy”

  • “Assuming that your hypothetical pope didn’t speak in the capacity of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians (as Pope Francis has not done), then it would be impossible to justify supporting schismatic cardinals in good conscience.’

    There we will have to disagree. A Pope who denied the divinity of Christ would be an anti-Pope and not a Pope, even if he did not use the ex cathedra incantation devised by Vatican I when engaging in apostasy.

  • Let us say that we have a Pope who denies the divinity of Christ. Would being in visible communion with such a Pope mean that no schism had occurred in the Church? [. . . .] A Pope who denied the divinity of Christ would be an anti-Pope and not a Pope, even if he did not use the ex cathedra incantation devised by Vatican I when engaging in apostasy.

    My guess would be that that “ex cathedra incantation” as you call it would be why your scenario would never happen. What I mean by that goes back to all the speculative theology by Bellermine (?) et. al. on how a Pope who taught heresy would cease to be Pope. But he has to teach it, not just speculatively ramble and prate with his marxist drinking buddy who then posts his “exclusive one on one interview” to snapfacechatterbooktwit But I’m no expert. Heck, I’m not even staying at the Vatican Holiday Inn Express, if you know what I mean.

    And your scenario is too simple. The real question is what, if anything, can be done about a Pope who privately denies the divinity of Christ.

    Honorius I doesn’t become less-than-pope for running his mouth nor Benedict IX for being profligate and a disgrace to the chair.

    Honorius’s problem was that he didn’t run his mouth when he should have.

  • “The real question is what, if anything, can be done about a Pope who privately denies the divinity of Christ.”

    History tells us that: elect a new Pope. It has happened many times in the history of the Papacy. We are not familiar with it, because it has been centuries since we last had a lunatic as Pope. Lucky us to live in such times.

  • Since I was too busy there trying to be clever to bother with clarity, what I’m saying is this:
    Francis may want to change unchangeable doctrine about divorce and remarriage, homosexuality (q.v.), cohabitation, birth control, and any number of other things concerning dogma. Liberals/Progressives?Modernists, clergy and laity alike, may want Francis to change those things (and those in the position to do so may be actively encouraging or utilizing Francis to do just that). Francis may just be a fuzzy headed scatterbrain who thinks love (and mercy!) conquers all and everything else is just commentary. The important point is that regardless of what Francis wants and regardless of what the aforementioned Liberal/Progressive/Modernists want, he can’t change dogma. All he/they/(whomever) can do is use ambiguity to pretend like he can.

    But that doesn’t mean we should react to their studied ambiguity, (or anything they –I’m looking at you, German & Maltese Bishops– try to build on that ambiguity) as if they’ve succeeded at doing what they can only pretend to accomplish.

    Bruce Jenner can grow out his hair and paint his nails and rouge his lips and shave his legs and wear short skirts, high heels and a padded bra and call himself Caitlyn. And Google and Wikipedia can redirect “Bruce Jenner” to “Caitlyn Jenner” and call him “she.”

    But he’s still a man.

    Because what can’t be changed

    isn’t.

  • Actually what history tells us is to assassinate the current incumbent before we elect his replacement.

    You left that step out.

  • “The important point is that regardless of what Francis wants and regardless of what the aforementioned Liberal/Progressive/Modernists want, he can’t change dogma.”

    Oh, he certainly can attempt to do so, and take countless souls to Hell as a result. Changing dogma by stealth is precisely what the gang in the Vatican currently is all about and I do not think sitting on our hands and praying for better days is proving to be an effective strategy. I hope that a group of Cardinals can convince him to resign. If not, depending upon the man chosen, I would endorse a group of Cardinals finding that Pope Francis has ceased to be Pope and electing a replacement Pope in his stead. An old remedy from Church history that I wish was not required, but I fear that we have not seen the worst of Francis yet.

  • Hah! I just saw this Clarence Darrow worthy legal move. Mentioned on Fr. Z’s site.

    A Miami defense lawyer’s pants burst into flames Wednesday afternoon as he began his closing arguments in front of a jury — in an arson case.

    Stephen Gutierrez, who was arguing that his client’s car spontaneously combusted and was not intentionally set on fire, had been fiddling in his pocket as he was about to address jurors when smoke began billowing out his right pocket, witnesses told the Miami Herald.

  • The last Pope who may have been murdered was the last Pope to resign, Celestine V.

  • Some lawyers will do anything to win a case! Probably a mistrial I would think.

  • I would endorse a group of Cardinals finding that Pope Francis has ceased to be Pope and electing a replacement Pope in his stead.

    I’m going off of memory here, and I don’t have the time to make sure I’m remembering correctly, but as I recall, the last group of Cardinals who did that were promptly excommunicated by the guy they’d just elected. Because nobody, not even a Council, has the right to judge the Pope. One of us will have to try to look it up. n.b. I’m not saying that that means the Pope is always right.

  • “Because nobody, not even a Council, has the right to judge the Pope.”

    Not a right, but a necessary duty depending upon the circumstance. Necessity in emergency situations is its own law, even in Canon law. A close examination of the machinations surrounding the Council of Constance may be instructive reading for Cardinals who have the good of the Church at heart.

  • I have a soft spot for Conciliarism, the Holy Roman Empire and the Dual Monarchy too, good republican & constitutionalist that I am…

    But, do you really want to encourage and empower the factionalism of the gossipy, clucking grannies in the College of Cardinals like that?

    Whose to say that the stupid faction and the the evil faction wouldn’t get together and do something both stupid and evil?

    And my guess is, the duty born of necessity is to attempt to correct the Pope, not depose him.

  • He has a life expectancy of about 8 years. The Cardinals may hope nature takes its course before he does irreparable damage (above and beyond what he has done). I do wonder if his acts might be considered invalid if it is discovered that Benedict’s departure was coerced in some way.

  • And my guess is, the duty born of necessity is to attempt to correct the Pope, not depose him.

    Francis was pretty irritated that the most recent synod did not give him precisely what he wanted. A certain amount of contumacious and passive-aggressive behavior on the part of bishops may one hopes do the trick.

  • “But, do you really want to encourage and empower the factionalism of the gossipy, clucking grannies in the College of Cardinals like that?”

    Ideally no I would not. However, the election of Pope Francis illustrates that conditions within the Church currently are very far from ideal.

  • Donald R McClarey asks, “Let us say that we have a Pope who denies the divinity of Christ. Would being in visible communion with such a Pope mean that no schism had occurred in the Church?”

    What have opinions to do with visible communion? As Bl John Henry Newman said, “We are called upon, not to profess any thing, but to submit and be silent, as Protestant Churchmen have before now obeyed the royal command to abstain from certain theological questions.”

    He adds that “Such injunctions as I have been contemplating are laid merely upon our actions, not upon our thoughts. How, for instance, does it tend to make a man a hypocrite, to be forbidden to publish a libel? his thoughts are as free as before: authoritative prohibitions may tease and irritate, but they have no bearing whatever upon the exercise of reason.”

  • “What have opinions to do with visible communion?”

    In your view MPS apparently nothing matters except blind obedience to a Pope no matter what he says or does. Thanks for the clarification of your position.

  • “Here, of course, I must explain: — in saying this, then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity, and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received their faith, in the first instance, from the Bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant, and other portions at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees and ordained an heretical clergy; — but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ than by the ‘Ecclesia docens;’ that the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and other great sees, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them. I see, then, in the Arian history a palmary example of a state of the Church, during which, in order to know the tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the faithful….”

    Cardinal Newman

  • Crossing the line: History tells us that there is no definite list of infallible statements by the popes. Like England, we have a living constitution in which certain great events and declarations stands out. When great controversies arise, such as the Arian heresy, Council propose definitions which, unfortunately, lead on to more controversy and even schism. Chalcedon was rejected by a majority of the bishop of the Church, which led to the first of the eastern schisms which remain with us today. Then the strictly political schism between Rome and Constantinople, which we managed to twist into a theological one. Then comes Luther. Then comes the modernists–which really starts with the efforts of Pope Benedict XIV failed dialogue with the philosophes and so here we. What gives me hope is that despite all this the Church manages to stay afloat in the stormy seas of the world.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “In your view MPS apparently nothing matters except blind obedience to a Pope no matter what he says or does.”

    Pastor Æternus is chiefly remembered for its assertion of the sparingly exercised power of Papal Infallibility. However, it also insisted on two other things: the power of government and the power of jurisdiction.

    Thus, “the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world” and “We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.”

  • John Shuh wrote, “History tells us that there is no definite list of infallible statements by the popes.”

    Were Cum Occasione and Unigenitus infallible? Most theologians think so but, whether they were or not is, in a sense, irrelevant; Innocent X, Alexander VII and Clement XI succeeded in unchurching the Jansenists. It is the old story: the Jesuits had the bishop of Rome in their party and the Jansenists did not.

Leave a Reply

March 8, 1917: Senate Introduces Cloture

Wednesday, March 8, AD 2017

Woodrow Wilson was no fan of Senate filibusters:

The Democrats controlled the Senate from 1913-1919 and Wilson hated the way that Republicans could bottle up his proposed legislation through the filibuster.  To mollify him, the Senate Democrats passed a rule change one hundred years ago that allowed the termination of debate on a two-thirds vote to invoke cloture.  Even after cloture each Senator could speak for an additional hour on the matter under consideration before a vote was taken.  Cloture existed more in theory than in practice.  Over the next 46 years the Senate would vote for cloture only five times.  There are several reasons why this was the case.

Filibusters added a touch of drama and comedy to otherwise dry proceedings.  The public generally enjoyed them as did more than a few Senators.  Many Senators prided themselves upon belonging to what they called the greatest deliberative body, and thought that the filibuster played an essential role in what made the Senate the Senate.  Southern Democrats, relying on the filibuster to stop civil rights legislation, were fervent supporters of the filibuster.  Many Senators realized that shifting political fortunes could turn a majority into a minority over night, and that the filibuster was the strongest tool of a minority. 

Continue reading...

8 Responses to March 8, 1917: Senate Introduces Cloture

  • Woodrow Wilson was a one world government advocate and a traitor to American sovereignty, with contempt for freedom and the people.

  • I loved “Mr. Smith”. It was not only so great just because of the moral example of Mr. Smith, so upstanding and so determined, but in the end of the movie the evil was revealed when the conscience of the leading bad guy began to work.
    We can still pray for consciences to prevail in our three branches and various departments.
    Somebody somewhere will start to remember that momma and daddy reared them to be good…

  • “Woodrow Wilson was a one world government advocate and a traitor to American sovereignty, with contempt for freedom and the people.”

    Wilson was a racist and a big government man, but he was not an advocate for world government nor was he a traitor to American sovereignty. His dislike of the filibuster is a fairly common belief of Presidents when their party controls the Senate.

  • Of course, Wilson was right. It’s a silly practice to have a Senator standing there reciting from the Biloxi City Directory for hours on end. Rules revisions introducing the Cadillac filibuster 40 years ago (which required saying ‘no’ at intervals and did not require marathon speaking) made the situation worse, as did the extension of ‘holds’ on nominees (initially a practice meant to delay action for a few days so that Senators would not be tied to the chamber) into a license for louts like Richard Shelby to anonymously gum up the works for months on end.

    The. U.S. Senate is an awful institution, and the sooner it’s abolished, the better.

  • It is time for faithful Catholics to coalesde as a group that clings to truths taught by orthodox teachers intheir past, and be deaf to the current Pope and his deformed henchmen,priests, bishopd and cardinals. Deliverance will come.

  • “Wilson was a racist and a big government man, but he was not an advocate for world government nor was he a traitor to American sovereignty” Wilson was the inventor of the League of Nations concept, the forerunner of the United Nations. The UN would take over the world if they could and make subjects of all American citizens, taxing us and running our government without our Constitution. Wilson had contempt for our Constitution. Doing away with our Constitution would have made Wilson happy.

  • The League of Nations had very little in common with the contemporary United Nations and blaming Wilson for the contemporary United Nations is rather akin to blaming Abraham Lincoln for a modern race riot. As for the Constitution, Wilson thought it needed to be updated through amendment, as it was while he was President. He never gave any indication that he hated the Constitution. I have very little liking for Wilson as a historical figure, but fair is fair, and Wilson has been recently savaged by some really poor historical scholarship, much of it promoted by the lunatic Glenn Beck. There is ample ground for criticizing Wilson without lying about him.

  • True. I did believe that Wilson was the father of what is going on in our colleges and universities, now. I will have to research more on what Wilson taught about our Constitution having to be replaced. SEE: Amendment Nine.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: More on Paglia

Tuesday, March 7, AD 2017

 

Sandro Magister brings us more info on Archbishop Palgia who Pope Francis has placed in charge of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family:

It made news in recent days and for some was a scandal when a glowing eulogy was given in memory of Marco Pannella (1930-2016) by Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, a prominent member of the Community of Sant’Egidio, former president of the pontifical council for the family, and as of a few months ago the president of the pontifical academy for life, as well as being the chancellor for the pontifical John Paul II institute for studies on marriage and family.

It was precisely life and the family, in effect, that were the battlefield of political action for Pannella, a leader of the radical party and a relentless promoter of abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage, and euthanasia.

But this did not stop Pope Francis from praising as “among the greats of Italy today,” in an interview last year, Pannella’s most active comrade in arms, the honorable Emma Bonino, for her commitment to the issue of migration. Just as he did not prohibit Fr. Federico Lombardi from bearing witness to the “highest admiration for Francis” of Pannella himself, an admiration reciprocated by the pope, for efforts on behalf of the incarcerated.

Paglia, therefore, is deliberately following in Francis’s footsteps. Exactly as he is doing in the institutes he oversees, which the pope has not by coincidence entrusted to him.

Settimo Cielo has already covered the news, back when it came out, of the new statutes of the pontifical academy for life that went into effect on January 1, carefully crafted to facilitate the purging of members not in line with the new course, as for example cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Willem Jacobus Eijk, or the renowned scholars Josef Maria Seifert and Luke Gormally.

But now it can be said that the purge is complete. If one goes to the official website of the academy and looks at the three lists of ordinary, corresponding, and emeritus members, one will find that no one appears on them anymore. Absolutely nobody. To find the names of those purged one has to consult the two lists of “former,” with 172, and “late,” with 10.

In other words: everyone fired or buried. And without the slightest forewarning. Not a memo. not an e-mail, not a thank you, not a requiem.

And the new academics who will take the places of the purged? The casting call is already underway, with supervision at Casa Santa Marta, but it will take time. The academy’s own website candidly confesses this, in justifying the delay until October 5-7 of the general assembly that is usually held at the beginning of the year:

“Just for the complexity of the process of appointing new Members of the Academy, made necessary with the approval of the new Statute desired by Pope Francis, the Assembly, will be held next October.”

Continue reading...

14 Responses to PopeWatch: More on Paglia

  • A radical, homosexual pro-abort. If you were Satan, who else would you put in charge of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

  • This pontificate cannot end soon enough. His successor will have an Augean stable to clean out (presuming his successor his a decent pope – ha ha). We’re living in our own variant of the 10th century.

  • If Sandro Magister is correct, than indeed we have a Masonic monster at the helm. Oct. 5-7 of ’17 for the general assembly. I pray that another miracle of the Son ( on purpose ) will overshadow this assembly to the point that it is striped and cleansed of reprobates that would be the “new” academics.

    This overthrow of the JPII institute is demonic. A sure sign of our times.

  • “This pontificate cannot end soon enough. ”
    Agreed. A line has been crossed here. I am now to the point where at the end of this pontificate I will thank God for Francis’ emphasis on mercy and ask God why Franics de-emphasized the sinfulness of that which requires mercy.
    (and yes I pretty much know why. just being rhetorical)

  • Should have added, my wife, who up until now has been a big PF fan, is starting to waver. “When you’ve lost Mrs. D….”

  • Loosing “Mrs. D.”

    It was a struggle for me, big time!
    Separating the Papal office from the man.
    Pope Watch has been a type of scanning apparatus. I didn’t like the scan, but regardless of the imagery, I became aware of the illness. Not unlike cancer, there isn’t much one can do in this uncomfortable setting. Prayers are the best antidote.

  • I stopped putting my tithe into the basket unless the homily spoke of God and His Son, Jesus. There are congregations of teaching sisters and nuns doing good. Support them and see to one’s neighbors in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

  • Casting call? More like casting couch.

  • Back to the future.
    Pope Benedict the XVI.
    We miss you.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-expert-details-39huge-homosexual-underground-in-the-church39

    The lavender Mafia is doing just fine..just peachy.

    If the future JPII Institute for studies on Marriage and Family starts suggesting an expansion of Southern Decadence festivals..well you know….don’t cry to Francis. After all…. It must be the fault of those wacky traditionalist. ( Liberial defense mechanism at work. Lie until everyone believes it true. )

  • I have read your comments and wholeheartedly agree with them. What are we to do if our own pastors keep silence? Jesus never visited blood thirsty tyrants responsable for the death of unborn chldren for economic gain or a dictator responsible for thousands of Christian martyrs. Open your eyes. This Pope holds hands with Satan himself in Cuba ! Gave Castro his approval lovingly. May I remind you that Christ only visited the persecuter and murderer of his people when He was apprehended and had His hands tied ! He did not smile lovingly at those tyrants. He did not bless or approve their satanic principles. . Christ is our Heavenly Father, our only Pastor. Rest assured the Holy Spirit will give us His Wisdom to fight this imposter

  • If God is to blame for free will in man then, God must be to blame for addiction to sodomy and lesbianism. Same sex attraction is an accident of birth. Addiction to sodomy, lesbianism is addiction to the capital sin of lust. The violation of man’s free will through addiction is a free will act for which man must accept responsibility before man can be rehabilitated.

  • How did this guy get approvals from JPII and BXVI ???

Leave a Reply

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Pope Saint John XXIII

Tuesday, March 7, AD 2017

 

 

Why I don’t applaud in Church:

“I am very glad to have come here. But if I must express a wish, it is that in church you not shout out, that you not clap your hands, and that you not greet even the Pope, because ‘templum Dei, templum Dei.’ (‘The temple of God is the temple of God.’)

Now, if you are pleased to be in this beautiful church, you must know that the Pope is also pleased to see his children. But as soon as he sees his good children, he certainly does not clap his hands in their faces. And the one who stands before you is the Successor of St. Peter.”

Pope Saint John XXIII

 

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Pope Saint John XXIII

  • Stop the talking in church. God is trying to pray.

  • There were many good and loving ideas and inspirations Pope John 23 left for us.
    There had been years of renewal movements prior to his papacy and I think the mood after the Wars was that society needed to institute change. Institutionalize it. He had already announced the ecumenical council in January 1959 before he was given the secret to read in the fall of that year. Prob the mention of an evil council didn’t sit well. He didn’t live to see what mischief was worked at/after the Council though- Paul VI had to face that.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Archbishop Paglia

Monday, March 6, AD 2017

 

 

Further evidence that this whole Pontificate may be, in a best case analysis, a divine practical joke:

 

The archbishop now at the helm of the Pontifical Academy for Life paid a homosexual artist to paint a blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church in 2007. The mural includes an image of the archbishop himself.

The archbishop, Vincenzo Paglia, was also recently appointed by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

The massive mural still covers the opposite side of the facade of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.

Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.

According to the artist, a homosexual Argentinean named Ricardo Cinalli who is known for his paintings of male bodies, Bishop Paglia selected him out of a list of ten internationally-known artists specifically for the task of painting the inner wall of the facade. Bishop Paglia, along with one Fr. Fabio Leonardis, oversaw every detail of Cinalli’s work, according to Cinalli, who approvingly notes that Paglia never asked him if he believed in the Christian doctrine of salvation.

“Working with him was humanly and professionally fantastic,” Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March of last year. “Never, in four months, during which we saw each other almost three times each week, did Paglia ever ask me if I believed in salvation. He never placed me in an uncomfortable position.”

“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” added Cinalli. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.”

 

Continue reading...

21 Responses to PopeWatch: Archbishop Paglia

  • The homoerotic Church painting is not Christ. It is anti-Christ. He has them caught in the nets alright, that is certain.
    The LBGT community has a home in Heaven. They, like all pilgrim’s, must repent and cease in activities that are not befitting to the inhabitants of Heaven. The idea of Salvation may of never crossed Paglia’s mind since it’s possible he is having his form of Heaven now. Hope not. Let’s hope a Lenten miracle destroys the image.

  • Philip above is basically correct. However, I would reword one sentence from the simple:

    “The LBGT community has a home in Heaven”

    to the more complete:

    “The Christian Church has its final home in Heaven; those with same sex attraction join that Church if they repent just as those with alcoholism may join it if they too repent.”

    There is no community in Heaven except the Church. And St Paul makes clear in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 that “…οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται…… βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν”

    Which means:

    “…nor effeminate nor sodomites…Kingdom of God shall receive.”

    St. Paul was as usual precise. He used the term μαλακός to denote male receivers of penetration by males and the term ἀρσενοκοίτης to denote male givers of penetration to males. The English translations we get are sadly sanitized.

  • PS, here is the entire excerpt from 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 in Greek, Nova Vulgata and Young’s Literal Translation into English:

    ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

    An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt? Nolite errare: neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari, non ebriosi, non maledici, non rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt.

    have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit

    οὔτε μαλακοὶ = neque molles = nor effeminate
    οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται = neque masculorum concubitores = nor sodomites
    βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν = regnum Dei possidebunt = Kingdom [Reign] of God shall receive [possess, inherit]

    It cannot possibly be more clear than that.

  • Thank you Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

  • Addiction to lust, sodomy and lesbianism is a violation of man’s free will. Free will is the image of God in man.
    Color of skin and sexual orientation are accidents of existence. The free will choice to sodomy is one sexual sin and another of assault and battery. The most evil is denying the human being’s rational, immortal human soul and thereby making atheists of us all. Scandalizing our Posterity, all future generations deserves a millstone about the neck. Has the millstone been painted into the mural or is it simply the swindle the Great Liar has prepared for man?

  • After 15 years of this stuff, you find yourself saying “Again?”

  • No mill stones Mary.
    Spirit Daily has the story with the sadistic schlock.

    Hell is a myth to many of these unfortunates.

  • Sadly, the Vatican and some surrounding dioceses are infested by homosexual and Free-mason clergy, and appear to be untouchable; well, in this life, anyway.
    Pray for the Church and for the conversion of Pope Francis.

  • The painting in question is a lie and a betray of the truth. The folks in the painting are on their way to hell. That is how the painting should have been done with a background of fiery red.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
    Does μαλακός mean effeminate?
    Its literal meaning is “soft.” Our Lord uses it twice, on both occasions referring to “soft” clothing: ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἠμφιεσμένον ἰδοὺ… οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες ἐν (Matt 11:8) and ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον (Luke 7:25). The connotation is of luxuriousness, rather than effeminacy.
    The only other occurrence in the NT is St Paul in 1Cor 6:9.
    In Classical Greek, besides it literal meaning, μαλακός can mean mild or gentle, but also faint-hearted or cowardly, depending on the context.
    ἀρσενοκοῖται occurs only in 1 Cor 6:9. It appears to be a coinage of St Paul’s. It is made up of ἄρσην (male) + ἄρσην (lie) and may be an echo of Leviticus 18:22 (but I’m guessing).

  • Apologies, I should have written “It is made up of ἄρσην (male) + κεῖμαι (to lie)

  • Philip Nachazel:: Our Lady said that souls are falling into hell like snowflakes. Our Lady asked for First Saturday reparation. Why is there a hell if there is no one in hell?

  • The picture shocks us. Jesus’ contemporaries were horrified by HIs eating and drinking with sinners. Jesus shocks us. He came to save sinners. We know that His efforts are not futile. EVERYONE who is thirsty is invited to come to the water (Isaiah 55)
    -My second reaction to Paglia and the painting is that the painting may express Paglia’s hope- his hope that is shared apparently by many others in Rome. to be caught up in the nets that Jesus casts out into the Very deep. As a mother, I also hope that Jesus, truly God and truly man, redeems the lost, even in their sinfulness, for He bears their iniquities- he makes intercession for transgressors. Because he surrendered himself to death,was counted among the transgressors, bore the sins of many,and interceded for the transgressors. (cf Isaiah 53:11-12 ). Several times He tells us to learn what it means that He desires Mercy and not sacrifice.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Why indeed?
    The unfortunates mentioned are the souls partaking in their heaven now.
    The idea that hell doesn’t exist allows for unabated recklessness and perverted self expression that is protected by political correctness.
    If the consequences of hell are removed altogether, then the debased appeties of disordered clergy can contrive a fasle narrative and abuse the Gospel message. Enter a mural located in a once holy cathedral.

  • Anzlyne, I agree that is the purpose of the painting, and the purpose is not a bad one. However, the small details of the painting show themes that are totally antinomian and perhaps also Manichaean.

  • @ Anzlyne.

    No one would disagree with needing our Divine Physician, for all are found in need of healing. All are found unworthy of the Glory to come. Sin no more is a commandment from the healing Sacred Heart. In raising the nets the artist depictions are void of repentance to a certain degree. A Christ with genitalia is making a mockery of the forgiving power of Christ. The artist himself is mocking repentance. View the mural.

    If I’m “projecting,” my feelings upon this art as one might suggest, I would defend my position because of the artworks location and it’s responsibility to all worshipers and viewers.

    Call me old fashioned if one must, but the sense of the sacred is lost in the need to satisfy the artists own sexual orientation.
    This is also revealing, as the testimony of the artist indicates; “everything was analyzed, everything was discussed.”

    Shame on them!

  • Thank you both for your replies. I am not antinomian- just a mother fiercely clinging to hope. My son, who embarked on this path at least intellectually at the Gregorian; making this lifestyle choice a reality after leaving seminary is only one of many many bright and beautiful young men encouraged to follow this temptation. I am not one who believes we can absolve ourselves (internal forum). Not manichean either though rearing 5 and grand-mothering 13 one become very aware of the spiritual warfare…
    anyway I sense the kindness of both of you TomD and Philip and I appreciate it.

  • Anzlyne.

    God grant your hearts desire regarding the beautiful soul that is your son. Temptations abound, yet this culture is fueling the fire with reckless abandon.
    Your heart is sustained and those you love will be protected under the mantel of Our Loving Mother, Queen of Peace. She will see to it Anzlyne.

    Peace of Christ dear soul.

    Your son is going in my prayers. Name not needed. Your Angel and my Guardian Angel are working this out as we write.

  • Than you Philip for your loving response to Anzlyne. If the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION is not in the painting then, Jesus Christ is being abused and the nets belong to Satan. Our Mother and Queen, Mary IMMACULATE is the one human being who is not in Satan’s grasp.

Saints of Lent: Athanasius Contra Mundum

Sunday, March 5, AD 2017

We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same.

He stood for the Tninitarian doctrine, ‘whole and undefiled,’ when it looked as if all the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius— into one of those ‘sensible’ synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.”

CS Lewis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lent is a grand time to confront evil, both that evil which stains our souls, and the evil external to us.  Throughout the history of the Church there have been saints who risked all to bravely confront the popular evils of their time.  This Lent on each Sunday we will be looking at some of those saints.  We begin with Saint Athanasius.

Saint Athanasius, a Doctor of the Church, and the foremost defender of the divinity of Christ, is one of the key figures in the history of the Faith.  His era, the Fourth Century, was a time period of turbulent change, not unlike our own in that respect.  With the conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christ, the Church was suddenly transformed from a proscribed cult into the religion of the Empire.  Instead of being executed for their faith in Christ, bishops found themselves important players in what was rapidly becoming a Christian Empire.  To many Christians, it seemed as if they had reached a golden period in human history when the Church could rapidly reach its goal of bringing all men to Christ.  History, however, never ceases to twist and turn as it charts the affairs of Man.

One of the more dangerous twists of History in the Fourth Century for the Church, was the meteoric rise of the Arian heresy.  A priest of Alexandria, Egypt, Arius propounded the doctrine that the Son, since he was begotten of the Father, was a creation of God, and not God.  He was the greatest of God’s creations, and next to God, but he was not God.  Of course, Arius thus destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity, and reduced Jesus from being God to being a creature serving God.  This doctrine, if it had prevailed, would have transformed Christianity into a Unitarian faith and inevitably downplayed the centrality of Christ.  The doctrine of Arius began to spread, until it was necessary for it to be addressed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the first of the ecumenical councils.  Called specifically to address Arianism, the Council was unequivocal in its condemnation of Arianism as indicated by the Nicene Creed written at the Council:

We Believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, Consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, and those who say “There was when he was not” and “Before his generation he was not” and “He came to be from nothing” or those who pretend that the Son of God is “Of other hypostasis or substance; or “created” or alterable” or “mutable”; the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Saints of Lent: Athanasius Contra Mundum

  • “but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy.”.
    St Athanasius , and (saint?) Cardinal Newman pray for us. Help us also to go against the world in defense of truth.

  • I think Newman had the Anglican Clergy in miss as he wrote about the 4th century. Its bishops he finally concluded were hardly more than agents of the Crown. So he crossed the Tiber. We do seem to face a similar situation in the American Church today, where since the early 8os, liberal bishops have been more about politics than preserving the faith. My worry is that Rome itself, which has been a check on their ambitions may be entering one of its lack periods. It nowsedems a place the aged prelate that Congressman Bob Doren once dubbed “the cockroach” for his behavior as Cardinal of Washington DC, for his currying walk, both literally and doctrinally away from the light, has found friends in high places in the Vatican.

  • I learned about the reconciliation of man with God that can only be done by God in the second grade, where I learned Aquinas taught by the good nuns and sisters of St. Felix. We need good sisters and nuns to teach our young children about Aquinas again.

  • Not just the liberal bishops, but most of them, in North America anyway, are preoccupied with politics and not concerned enough with the fact that Jesus HATED sin. Sin separates us from God, and I say this as someone who ought to go to Confession tomorrow.

    My opposition to unchecked immigration into the US is NOT due to hatred of the poor or being “unwelcoming” to the immigrant. This nation is $20 trillion in debt. There are not enough good jobs to go around. Every day there is another news story of an “immigrant” who has committed multiple crimes but has not been deported. Where is any Bishops conference demanding that Mexico, Haiti, Honduras, or even Cuba clean up its act? No, it’s always that the US has to let ’em all in and give them what I work for to provide for my family.

    I was in Catholic School from 1971 through 1976. The teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas were never mentioned. Oh, but we were sure to sing each week at Mass…with a guitar playing. Great things happen when God mixes with man and other drivel.

PopeWatch: Pope Burke

Saturday, March 4, AD 2017

From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:

In an epic mistake that drew gasps from Catholics and non-Catholics around the world yesterday, Cardinal Protodeacon Jean-Louis Tauran recently announced that he mistakenly named Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope at the 2013 Papal Conclave, when in reality it was Cardinal Raymond Burke that won the top prize.

The newly-elected Pope Francis was saying some random thing that would have made many Catholics scratching their heads when the interjection came that Burke had in fact been elected pope.

“I want to tell you what happened,” Tauran told press gathered at the Vatican yesterday. “I opened the envelope, and it said ‘Jorge Mario Bergoglio, La La Church.’”

“Burke,” the story of a white, Catholic, conservative man had already won best supporting cardinal for Making Things Look A Little Less Out Of Control.

“Very clearly, even in my prayers this could not be true,” Burke told those gathered in St. Peter’s Square. “But to hell with it, I’m done with it, because this is true. Oh my goodness.”

It was not immediately clear how the mistake was made, though EOTT tweeted out a photo that showed that the envelope in Tauran’s hand reading “Best Bishop Of A Diocese That Is Not The Diocese of Rome.”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Pope Burke

  • An American Pope. How extraordinary. An orthodox Pope. How orthodox.

  • I saw this picture some time ago, and actually sent a printed copy to the good cardinal in Rome. He very graciously replied to my accompanying note, but didn’t mention the photo for some reason.

  • “Red Hatter’s Matter!”-Author unknown..thank goodness.

    Vatican Cards.
    Sort of like poker, sheepshead and Euchre rolled into one.

    Example: I see your bluff, I’ll raise you five and trade my Pope for three of your Cardinals. Oh, and Cardinal Burke is wild.
    Trump is well..trump, and everybody gets a hors d’oeuvre.

    You can’t win. The deck is stacked.

2 Responses to Just Because

America

Saturday, March 4, AD 2017

 

Something for the weekend.  America from West Side Story.  Hard to believe that it is 60 years since this updating of Romeo and Juliet was first performed on the stage.  Parts of it are still powerful, especially at the end where Maria blames the hate of both the Jets and the Sharks for the death of her Tony, and the gang members join in carrying away his corpse.  Of course some elements now seem absurd.  The gang members now look so clean cut that they are more like young members of a Rotary Club than would be street criminals.

Continue reading...

One Response to America

  • I find the message of racial tolerance more mature back then. We were watching In the Heat of the Night. My boys picked up on the fact that Mr. Tibbs realized he was every bit as prejudiced in his own way, and that was clouding his ability to solve the case. They said today, such themes usually involve one person or group of people who totally get it, opposing or schooling someone (or some group) who are entirely wrong, hateful, bigoted. That there was a time when we realized you could have two sides wrong in the area of racism or bigotry seemed quite interesting to my boys, given the era in which they’ve grown.

March 3, 1917: Zimmerman Telegram Confirmed

Friday, March 3, AD 2017

In the wake of the revelation of the Zimmerman telegram, President Wilson had a problem.  Large segments of the American population, most notably Irish-Americans and German-Americans, had doubts about the validity of the telegram.  The Hearst newspapers claimed it was a fake cooked up by British intelligence.  Incredibly in light of this, the German Foreign Secretary confirmed the validity of the telegram in an interview on March 3, 1917 when asked about it by an American journalist.  Overnight, American public opinion became almost unanimous that war against German was inevitable.  On March 29, 1917 Foreign Secretary Zimmerman in a speech to the Reichstag attempted to justify the telegram which only further enraged American public opinion, and solidified the status of the Zimmerman telegram as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of all time:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to March 3, 1917: Zimmerman Telegram Confirmed

  • I recently saw on a History Channel WWII program that not so long (1940?) before 7 December 1941 only about 6% of Americans favored US involvement in the world war. Powerful foreign interests favored and opposed US intervention in both wars. For example, Stalin’s American, useless idiots strongly opposed (when Russia and Hitler tore up Poland; and Russia raped Finland) US intervention until they strongly favored US participation after Hitler invaded the USSR.

    More importantly, on 3 March 1985 our son John was born: Captain, US Army Infantry, Airborne Ranger; husband and soon-to-be father. Per plan he is a far, far better man than I am.

  • T. Shaw: God bless your Son John: Captain, US Army Infantry, Airborne Ranger; husband and soon-to-be father. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

  • Congratulations, Shaw! Hug the baby for my family, please. (We’ve got a new little boy here, and it’s all I can do to keep his littlest big sister from maiming him with affection….)

  • Congratulations soon to be Grandfather…will this child be your first grandbaby?

    Regardless, blessings are in order.
    Peace.

  • The German government, then and now, isn’t very smart.

  • Praise God from whom all blessings come.

    Thank you all. This gift of God (God willing!) will be our third. The oldest son’s wife is due end of April. Plus, the youngest son is to be wed in the Church on a Saturday afternoon late-July.

    Thanks be to God.

    Live Jesus in our hearts, forever.

  • TShaw, congratulations
    I’m old enough to have a 30 year old son, but…… my boys are 9 and 5. I hope God makes me wait to die like I waited to…..
    Graduate from college,
    Find a job,
    Find another job,
    Meet a girlfriend,
    Get married, and…
    Buy a house.

  • Today I was doing some historical research for a web site and came across a reference to the State Department’s “Grey Code”. Having never heard of it, I did a search and found a very interesting document that is relevant to this posting. It is https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/176705.pdf
    Enjoy.

When You Have Lost Phil Lawler

Friday, March 3, AD 2017

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture is about as far from being a bomb thrower as it is possible for a Catholic commentator to be, and thus I read with some astonishment his recent post entitled This Disastrous Papacy:

Something snapped last Friday, when Pope Francis used the day’s Gospel reading as one more opportunity to promote his own view on divorce and remarriage. Condemning hypocrisy and the “logic of casuistry,” the Pontiff said that Jesus rejects the approach of legal scholars.

True enough. But in his rebuke to the Pharisees, what does Jesus say about marriage?

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

…and…

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Day after day, in his homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican’s St. Martha residence, Pope Francis denounces the “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes his interpretation of the day’s Scripture readings is forced; often his characterization of tradition-minded Catholics is insulting. But in this case, the Pope turned the Gospel reading completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of that astonishing homily, I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.

For over 20 years now, writing daily about the news from the Vatican, I have tried to be honest in my assessment of papal statements and gestures. I sometimes criticized St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when I thought that their actions were imprudent. But never did it cross my mind that either of those Popes posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith. Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist?

Pope Francis has sparked controversy from the day he was elected as St. Peter’s successor. But in the past several months the controversy has become so intense, confusion among the faithful so widespread, administration at the Vatican so arbitrary—and the Pope’s diatribes against his (real or imagined) foes so manic—that today the universal Church is rushing toward a crisis.

In a large family, how should a son behave when he realizes that his father’s pathological behavior threatens the welfare of the whole household? He should certainly continue to show respect for his father, but he cannot indefinitely deny the danger. Eventually, a dysfunctional family needs an intervention.

In the worldwide family that is the Catholic Church, the best means of intervention is always prayer. Intense prayer for the Holy Father would be a particularly apt project for the season of Lent. But intervention also requires honesty: a candid recognition that we have a serious problem.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to When You Have Lost Phil Lawler

PopeWatch: Resign!

Friday, March 3, AD 2017

 

Well this is interesting:

According to a report in The London Times and best selling Catholic author and journalist Antonio Socci, about 12 cardinals who have supported Pope Francis since his election in March 2013 now fear that his controversial reforms may cause a schism in the Church, and so they hope to pressure the Pope to resign. 

“A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia … that organized his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivationg the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire,” reported Socci in the Italian newspaper Libero, as quoted in The London Times of March 2.

The cardinals who want Pope Francis to resign are among the liberal prelates who backed Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) four years ago, said Socci, and they would like to replace him with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state. 

“Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s [who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church],” said Socci

Continue reading...

23 Responses to PopeWatch: Resign!

  • Would a resignation be a type of retirement?

    Three Pope’s?

    I suppose that is insignificant due to the importance of his removal from the office. The real question becomes his successor.

    At the future announcement of PF’s resignation could we expect more lightning, or possibly an earthquake? My guess.
    A rainbow. Not the hijacked version.

    I’m praying for him as usual.
    I will not cease.
    The gates of hell will not prevail over Holy Catholic Church.

  • This Pope is not going to resign – at least not until he fundamentally transforms the Church as Obama has America.

  • This pope insists on casting the nets over the shallow waters in the hopes, I believe, of drawing in the fallen-away, the disillusioned, the outcast, and the self-exiled. Not that this is a bad thing in and of itself, he should, though, every once in a while, show that he is also a shepherd and tend to the faithful of the flock.

  • Jimmy Chonga.

    I thought so too.
    That his efforts, reckless though they be, are in that vein. Wanting to convert as many through his idea of mercy.
    Lutheran Church is being vindicated by his “love in,”in stead of conversion…But that is my nickel observation.

  • I love Benedict, and admire the humility that led him to retire, but his action opened a can of worms. This article reads like something from the 1200’s.

  • Bergoglio’s preemptive war against the sovereign personhood of the newly procreated in original innocence, the standard of Justice for all people, through population control; then blaming the environmental problems on “people as pollution” displays a lack of trust in divine Providence. Not seeing volcanoes and earthquakes as divine retribution for the sins of man, Bergoglio assaults people instead of our sins. Bergoglio has excommunicated himself.

  • He was coerced Pinky, don’t forget that and now he’s an old man being manipulated.

  • Pope Francis has brought honesty and humanity back to the Church.I thank God that he was sent to us!!

  • Would it be enough for him to resign though? Surely Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia need to be…scrapped, or something.

  • Jimmy & Philip — Converting the exiled, but to what? I think Bergoglio’s real goal is to convert the Church to the outside world (not vice versa), so at the end we are all a bunch of grinning social workers alternating between hugging each other and the nearby trees.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Happy FrancisChurch Lent, You Religious Bastard! – The Stumbling Block
  • Susan Weddell: How can Pope Francis bring honesty and humanity back to us without Jesus Christ and the TRUTH?

  • I can’t figure out if Susan Weddell is being humorously sarcastic or idiotically serious. No offense, but anyone who thinks as Susan wrote has serious issues.

  • We will be thrilled if he resigns. However, we will still be left with a powerful group of sodomite Freemasons, who hold all the cards except the ones the Good Lord holds. Providence allowed Donald Trump to be made president against all odds. His opponents never even saw it coming, not at all. Things can change on a dime, if the Good Lord wills it.
    Please Lord, help us rout these evil men from your church. Amen.

  • Kathleen, I pray for his resignation and a conservative replacement….as well as the rooting out of the Freemasons in the Curia every day. I pray more Catholics do the same. I also prayed for Trump to get elected when he ran and I continue to pray for his safety and
    guidance from God.

  • Yes Kathleen we’d still be left with those guys- can we call them “deep church”😁

  • The discourse about freemasons has always struck me as a RadTrad fantasy. Gay cliques, careerists, aspirant den-mothers-on-salary are our problem. I suspect the corruption is worse under Francis because he simply doesn’t care about the substance of these issues and the purpose of investigations and sanctions is to punish adversaries, not promote discipline. I’m frankly surprised they haven’t trumped up charges against Cdl. Burke.

  • “Pope Francis has brought honesty and humanity back to the Church.I thank God that he was sent to us!!”

    So, was it Pope St. John Paul II or was it Pope Benedict XVI who deprived the Church of honesty and humanity? I’d really like to know. If Bergoglio is allegedly bringing those things back, then they MUST have been lacking under his predecessors.

  • So, was it Pope St. John Paul II or was it Pope Benedict XVI who deprived the Church of honesty and humanity? I’d really like to know. If Bergoglio is allegedly bringing those things back, then they MUST have been lacking under his predecessors.

    I suspect S. Weddell defines ‘honesty’ and ‘humanity’ to mean ‘doesn’t get under my skin’.

  • I’m not generally one to assign guilt by association, but the Shea is strong with this one.

  • Sorry, that was uncalled for. I don’t know that this lady is even familiar with the gentleman to whom I refer. I apologize for the previous comment.

  • Sorry, that was uncalled for. I don’t know that this lady is even familiar with the gentleman to whom I refer. I apologize for the previous comment.

    I did wonder of ‘Susan Weddell’ has any connection to Shea-pal Sherry Weddell.

  • “I’m not generally one to assign guilt by association, but the Shea is strong with this one.”

    “Sorry, that was uncalled for.”

    It was a funny line though. I will use it in the future. 😆

March 2, 1836: Texas Declaration of Independence

Thursday, March 2, AD 2017

 

Four days before the fall of the Alamo on March 6, 1836, the people of Texas in Convention assembled proclaimed the independence of the Republic of Texas.  Surely few such proclamations have been issued in more dire straits.  Texas had no military other than some raw militia units.  The Texan garrison at the Alamo was under siege by a large professional Mexican army under Santa Anna.  It seemed as if the Republic of Texas was a still-born State, doomed to be forgotten soon after its birth, its advocates lucky to be alive if they survived the coming military debacle.  However, General Sam Houston, commander of all of the non-existent armies of Texas, had other ideas.  Here is the text of the Declaration:

Continue reading...

12 Responses to March 2, 1836: Texas Declaration of Independence

  • When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived,

    When has it ever been a Catholic principle that authority comes from below (i.e. the people) rather than from God? The more revolutionary documents I read, the more they all seem to boil down to non serviam.

    They sure had a particular disdain for the Church with no less than three direct attacks against the Church.
    the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty
    the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood
    It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion (that is, the Church)

  • “When has it ever been a Catholic principle that authority comes from below (i.e. the people) rather than from God?”
    Actually Saint Thomas Aquinas:

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/1990/thomas-aquinas-the-first-whig-what-our-liberties-owe-to-a-neapolitan-mendicant

    Neither the framers of the Texas Declaration nor the Angelic Doctor would dispute that God was ultimately in charge, but they also understood that the mass of humanity were not born with saddles on their backs, to quote Jefferson, to be ridden by a select group of leaders.

    “It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion”

    The Texans were rightfully upset that the Mexicans restricted citizenship to Catholics only. The Church today would object to such a provision.

  • Actually Saint Thomas Aquinas:
    Novak fails to make his case in attempting to push back onto Aquinas Novak’s own politics.

    In doing background research while reading your Novak article, I see that article is part of the growing dispute among Catholics over the reconciling of certain American/liberal principles and Catholicism. It led me to your fellow contributor, Christopher Blosser’s blog sites compiling articles, as well as a previous American Catholic article on the debate. I don’t we’re going to get very far on our disagreement here. Your link to Novak suggests you’re sympathetic to his position. I’m not.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2014/02/06/a-catholic-showdown-worth-watching/ :
    For those in the Murray/Neuhaus/Weigel school, it’s simply a matter of returning us to the better days, and reviving the sound basis on which the nation was founded. For those in the MacIntyre/Schindler school, America was never well-founded, so either needs to be differently re-founded or at least endured, even survived.

    While I don’t care to get pigeon-holed with names of others, I arrived independently with the same general conclusion as the apparent MacIntyre/Schindler school that the philosophical principles (and implementation) of the American (and Texas) founding fathers is incompatible with Catholicism. Today, we are seeing not the abandonment of original principles, but inevitable fruits.

    The Texans were rightfully upset that the Mexicans restricted citizenship to Catholics only
    Do you have a citation that citizenship was actually restricted rather than simply that Catholicism was officially recognized and other practices prohibited? Remember, a nation has the right to regulate immigration to avoid the detriment of its citizens.
    The Church today would object to such a provision.
    I’m sure you’ll understand that I’m not going to be impressed with statements that start with The Church today would …, considering that one can fill the ellipses with pretty much anything.

    I have a particularly difficult time being sympathetic with any group’s complaints about despotism while itself practiced slavery. The Texians were importing slaves and slavery contrary to existing Mexican law. The Church then did not approve, much less today. Again, the Texians turned right around and restricted Texas citizenship on the basis of race. Care to defend that?

  • Oops. Sorry.

    My poor old eyes skimmed over “theamericanconservative.com” and interpreted “the-american-catholic.com.” That article didn’t come from this site. It was just linked to by Mr. Blosser.

  • “While I don’t care to get pigeon-holed with names of others, I arrived independently with the same general conclusion as the apparent MacIntyre/Schindler school that the philosophical principles (and implementation) of the American (and Texas) founding fathers is incompatible with Catholicism. Today, we are seeing not the abandonment of original principles, but inevitable fruits.”

    You of course have been proven wrong on that. Catholicism has flourished in the United States while it is dying in such traditionally Catholic countries as Italy and Spain. The pathologies that afflict the Church here are much worse in most parts of the world. You merely lend support to the lies of anti-Catholic bigots that Catholicism is inevitably the enemy of free institutions. Fortunately very few Catholics I believe agree with you.

    “Do you have a citation that citizenship was actually restricted rather than simply that Catholicism was officially recognized and other practices prohibited?”

    The Constitution of 1824 prohibited any faith other than Catholicism, and settlers were required to convert to Catholicism. If you think such provisions aided Catholicism in Mexico you are incorrect.

    “The Church then did not approve, much less today.”

    Actually the Church did not condemn slavery until 1839 in In supremo apostolates. It would take the Civil War to rectify that injustice. Spain and Portugal long ignored the condemnation of slavery by the Pope.

  • Catholicism has flourished in the United States
    Really? I think you are mistaking flourishing within the US qua US, with the establishment of communities of Catholic immigrants. Once the influence of those first generation catholics waned and the assimilation to American culture took root, the Catholicism began to wither on the vine. Point out just where Catholicism is flourishing in the US today. The US can not even produce enough priests for its own needs. I think you use a different definition of flourishing.
    Yes, things are bad in other first world countries. The same philosophical principles took root there, too (although much originally came from the continent). However, the “it’s worse elsewhere” argument does not demonstrate that the philosophical principles in the US founding are compatible with Catholicism. That is just deflection.

    You merely lend support to the lies of anti-Catholic bigots that Catholicism is inevitably the enemy of free institutions.
    That is an astounding outburst of emotion. You’ve completely disengaged from rational discourse.

    The Constitution of 1824 prohibited any faith other than Catholicism, and settlers were required to convert to Catholicism. If you think such provisions aided Catholicism in Mexico you are incorrect.
    Title I, Article 3. The Religion of the Mexican Nation, is, and will be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The Nation will protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of any other whatever.
    No mention of the requirement for conversion. Care to point that out.

    Yes, Catholics in Mexico have suffered much at the hands of atheists and Masons. Subsequent constitutions turned very anti-clerical. De Santa Anna himself was no supporter of the Church.
    The US itself did Catholics no favors in the Mexican conflicts. Particularly in the Cristeros war, the US was supplying the anti-Catholic regime.

    Church did not condemn slavery until 1839
    Actually there were condemnations much earlier.

    Spain and Portugal long ignored the condemnation of slavery by the Pope.
    Ahh! The “Billy’s mom lets him do it” justification.

    I admit defeat. I cannot compete with Billy’s mom.

  • “Really?”

    Yes, really.

    “Yes, things are bad in other first world countries.”

    You can add to that almost all third world countries outside some areas of Africa, areas where the local Church still relies upon strong financial support from outside Catholics, usually from the United States.

    “That is an astounding outburst of emotion. You’ve completely disengaged from rational discourse.”

    You of course have no response to what I wrote because it is true. You would use Caesar to eliminate the public worship of all groups except Catholics. You are far more useful to anti-Catholic bigots than any Jack Chick comic book.

    “Title I, Article 3. The Religion of the Mexican Nation, is, and will be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The Nation will protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of any other whatever.”

    Yep, that provision was interpreted by Mexican officials as requiring conversion to Catholicism before citizenship could be granted.

    “Yes, Catholics in Mexico have suffered much at the hands of atheists and Masons. Subsequent constitutions turned very anti-clerical. De Santa Anna himself was no supporter of the Church.”

    Santa Anna, scoundrel that he was, had no true convictions. He was an enemy of the Church at times, but in the last of his many terms as President, in the 1850s, he posed as a friend of the Church. The problem of course for the Church was that the principle that the government could intervene in matters of religion was established from the inception of the Mexican republic. Establish Caesar as a champion of the Church and an enemy of other faiths, and do not be surprised when the sword of Caesar is eventually wielded against the Church, as has happened in Catholic country after Catholic country.
    In regard to the Cristeros War, Dwight Morrow, American ambassador to Mexico, brokered the peace with the Mexican government, the Vatican supporting this initiative.

    “Actually there were condemnations much earlier.”

    Limited condemnations which had zero impact, as typified by religious orders that owned slaves, for example the Jesuits in Maryland, who sold some 272 slaves in 1838 to reduce a massive debt owed by Georgetown University.

  • You would use Caesar to eliminate the public worship of all groups except Catholics. You are far more useful to anti-Catholic bigots than any Jack Chick comic book.
    I stated no such thing. You made an emotional jump to an irrational assertion.

    Seems to me you should review your own Comments Policy:
    I will express my disagreements with others’ ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally.
    I will not exaggerate others’ beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt.
    Making wild, unfounded assertions about my position and what I would or would not do, hardly seems to conform.

    I would have thought by now you’d have enough experience to know that anti-Catholic bigots don’t need any excuses for their hostility. It isn’t the external enemies that the Church has ever had to truly worry about. It’s always those on the inside collaborating, compromising, and falling for false doctrines. That’s what brings the Church down.

    I’m familiar with Morrow’s role while the US was supplying weapons to Calles and trying to obtain oil leases. The so-called peace deal won no concessions for the Cristeros. Yes the Vatican and the Mexican bishops approved it. It was not the first (nor will be the last) mistake the hierarchy has made.

    You still have not shown how Catholicism is “flourishing” in the US. Good luck with that. How the Church is doing in other parts of the world is irrelevant to the evaluation of the Church in the US. The 2nd largest denomination in the US is ex-Catholics. Somehow American culture is not conducive to reinforcing Catholicism.

    But let’s be real. This is a very emotional topic for you, and further discourse on it will not render any good fruits. If you want to hold the position that American founding principles are good for Catholicism, you’re certainly in good company. The American hierarchy holds that view, too. Of course, they’re too busy closing parishes to comment at this time.

  • “Do you have a citation that citizenship was actually restricted rather than simply that Catholicism was officially recognized and other practices prohibited?”

    I guess that was a purely meaningless comment by you? At least have the courage of your mistaken convictions.

    “Making wild, unfounded assertions about my position and what I would or would not do, hardly seems to conform.”

    I merely made the mistake of taking seriously what you typed.

    “I would have thought by now you’d have enough experience to know that anti-Catholic bigots don’t need any excuses for their hostility.”

    How that has anything to do with you giving them ammunition for one of their key assertions is beyond me.

    “The so-called peace deal won no concessions for the Cristeros. Yes the Vatican and the Mexican bishops approved it. It was not the first (nor will be the last) mistake the hierarchy has made.”

    Actually that is incorrect.

    His office drafted a pact called the arreglos (agreement) that allowed worship to resume in Mexico and granted three concessions to the Catholics: only priests who were named by hierarchical superiors would be required to register, religious instruction in the churches (but not in the schools) would be permitted, and all citizens, including the clergy, would be allowed to make petitions to reform the laws. But the most important part of the agreement was that the church would recover the right to use its properties, and priests recovered their rights to live on such property. Legally speaking, the Church was not allowed to own real estate, and its former facilities remained federal property. However, the church effectively took control over the properties. It was a convenient arrangement for both parties, and the church ostensibly ended its support for the rebels.

    Personally I would have held out for more, but that was a good enough deal for the Church, especially since the Mexican government was bound to cheat as it did. The Church excommunicated Cristeros who did not accept the peace terms. Of course the whole affair was a good argument for American style separation of Church and state.

    “You still have not shown how Catholicism is “flourishing” in the US.”

    Compared to the 1950s in the US it is not. Compared to the rest of the world today it certainly is.

    “This is a very emotional topic for you”

    Not really since in my day job I am paid to argue without getting emotionally involved. I simply do not allow people to make statements without holding them, on this blog, to account for their statements.

  • The relationship between religion and the state is a main theme of the Bible. It certainly comes up in the story of the passion story. But Our Lord doesn’t waste much time on that. Give to Caresar the things that are caesar’s, and to to God these things that are God’s . Ironic, because everything belongs to God

  • It is a historical fact that Anglo settlers in Texas made a bargain – convert to Catholicism, and get free land in Texas. Before 1836, it seemed like a good bargain. When relations between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican government soured, the Anglo settlers made their objection to forced conversions an article in their Declaration of Independence. So, it is a historical fact that Texas independence was (temporarily) a setback for Catholicism. I am a Texan and a Catholic, and while I love my home state, I am aware that the history is full of the good, the bad and the ugly.

  • John Schuh: “Give to Caresar the things that are caesar’s, and to to God these things that are God’s.” Ironic, because everything belongs to God;
    Caesar belongs to God.
    The sovereign personhood that institutes government is endowed by God. God gives man free will and freedom. The state is founded by sovereign citizens to guard the endowed gifts of God, in that order. Yes, the Son of God instituted the Catholic Church to free men from sin. Free men wrote our Founding Principles. Slaves know their freedom. In the Catholic Church men find their freedom. So to find their freedom, men sometimes use the Catholic Church and using the Catholic Church, men find their God.

PopeWatch: Marks of the Church

Thursday, March 2, AD 2017

 

 

Lifesite News has a cry from the heart as to what Pope Francis has done to the Church:

What liberal prelates like McCarrick, Murphy-O’Connor, and Danneels knew about Bergoglio’s capacity to “make the Church over again” has only slowly and confusedly become evident to faithful Catholics over the last four years, but especially in the last year. Based on a mistaken notion of papal infallibility, many Catholics have defended Pope Francis to the point of absurdity. But sober-minded Catholics who know the traditional teachings, history, and practices, are alarmed at the clear fact that many of the Holy Father’s actions and statements are at odds with what has gone before.

In Bergoglio’s four years as Pope Francis the four marks that set the Catholic Church apart from every other religion on the face of the earth, namely that she is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, have become obscured and even undermined.

The oneness or unity of the Church in her submission to Christ as head, in her doctrinal integrity, and in her confession of one faith has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

  • He has called for a “decentralized” Church, and allowed individual bishops’ groups to determine for their own “regional” churches what is moral and right. In this way, it is supposedly permissible for adulterers to receive Holy Communion in Germany while across the border in Poland it is gravely sinful.
  • His ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful.
  • He has refused to answer Church leaders earnestly begging for clarity on points of contention.
  • He has allowed Catholic doctrine to be minimized in the name of religious “dialogue” with other Christian denominations with a history of hostility towards Catholic doctrine on marriage, the Eucharist, and the papacy. Under his leadership, the Vatican has even hailed Luther, the founder of Protestantism, as a “witness to the gospel.”

The holiness and sacred reality of the Church as the bride of Christ has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

The Catholicity or universal mission of the Church to ceaselessly toil for the salvation of souls has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

The apostolicity of the Church where the deposit of faith is authentically handed down from the apostles through their successors the bishops and cardinals has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

 

Continue reading...

25 Responses to PopeWatch: Marks of the Church

  • In a burst of brilliant light, the Archangel Gabriel flew in to St. Peter’s basilica with a scroll in his hand. It read; “Until further notice, the pontificate is limited to a four year term.”

    Term limits. 😥 Pope Francis’ term is nearing completion. 😕

  • Ooh no.

    I was sleep texting again.
    Sorry.

  • Pope Chastisement has caused many in the Church to decide if they are for Christ, or not. He has woken many Catholics up to the assault on their faith. Sides have been drawn. Yes now means yes, and no means no. Unfortunately, most of this reaction has been among the laity. With few exceptions, the clergy have not spoken as clearly or have acknowledged the assault. I will continue to pray for the clergy.

  • With few exceptions, the clergy have not spoken as clearly or have acknowledged the assault. I will continue to pray for the clergy.

    Among the clergy I’m acquainted with, Francis has gone down the memory hole and as little reference to him as possible is made. (There remains a photo in the hallway outside the nave). He doesn’t teach, he doesn’t sanctify, and his ‘governing’ consists of playing institutional politics.

  • He is not my pope.

    Only prayer and fasting drives out certain demons. We are not praying enough.

    With the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit, The Church will survive. “May the Divine Assistance be always with us. Amen.”

  • Hailing Luther as a “witness to the Gospel” nothing but the TRUTH, did Luther adhere to the Gospel: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church.”?
    The Catholic Church, every church and The Vatican, belong to all people, every generation and all future generations, in part and in whole, in joint and common tenancy. The Catholic Church is held in trust for all generations, past, present and future. For this reason, the Church may not be taxed. The Church is a DONATION to all people, a free will donation by Jesus Christ to every nation in every generation for Jesus is outside of time. Jesus Christ instituted the Church and her Sacraments and only Jesus Christ’s Truth must be obeyed and followed to be a Christian and a Catholic.
    Renting out Jesus Christ’s Church is not within the authentic authority of Pope Francis… money grubbing. Francis cannot profane what is Holy. Francis cannot give the children’s food to the dogs.
    God forces no one to heaven or into Christ’s Church. There is no mercy, nor grace, unless desired and all conditions must be met. Grace and mercy cannot abide in a dead soul no more than life can abide in a dead body. God must resurrect a dead soul to grace and mercy when the soul appeals to God for grace and mercy. Francis has nothing to do with granting mercy and grace unless God grants and allows grace and mercy.

  • Mary De Voe.

    The commonality between Luther and Francis is disconcerting.

    Oh well. We can only change ourselves through the Grace of God, and until those we care for help themselves all we can do is pray.
    Praying for the Pope to discern the promptings of the Holy Spirit v. the thief who steals the gifts.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Don’t Be Afraid to Say It. Francis Should Step Down! – The Stumbling Block
  • Maybe the laity needs to write to Pope Francis along the theme of “Mit Brennender Sorge” (context intentional)

  • Matthew 23:9

    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

  • Once again, we see the familiar fallacy of trying to define Catholics by their tenets or the Church by her teaching.

    When he was still an Anglican, Mgr Ronald Knox asked himself a simple question: “Why did those who anathematized Nestorius come to be regarded as “Catholics” rather than those who still accept his doctrines?” He realised that we do not have to concern ourselves with the theological arguments at all; the short answer is that the “Catholics” had the bishop of Rome in their party and the Nestorians did not.

    As he says, “if you ask a Catholic “What is the Catholic Faith?” and are told it is that held by the Catholic Church; if you persevere, and ask what is the Catholic Church, you are no longer met with the irritatingly circular definition “the Church which holds the Catholic Faith” ; you are told it is the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

    It is a real test, not a vicious circle and one that is is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

  • “As he says, “if you ask a Catholic “What is the Catholic Faith?” and are told it is that held by the Catholic Church; if you persevere, and ask what is the Catholic Church, you are no longer met with the irritatingly circular definition “the Church which holds the Catholic Faith” ; you are told it is the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.””

    Because past popes have almost universally been ardent defenders of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Alas, that cannot be said with a straight face of the current Pope.

  • Good summary of the evidence against this dreadful man. Hopefully, more folks will become aware of his devilish efforts to undermine the Church. Since Pope Francis is being permitted to do this by God we must believe that some good will ultimately come from it. For example, this could be a way of separating the wheat from the chaff in the Church. Mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

  • Philip Nachazel:
    “The commonality between Luther and Francis is disconcerting.”
    Luther built his church on the evil being done by evil men in the Church. Francis is building his church on the evil he is creating.

    John:
    Matthew 23:9
    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, WHO is in heaven.” WHO denotes the sovereign Persons of the Trinity.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: The Catholic Faith is a gift from God . Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, Christ WHO is the TRUTH. So, the Catholic Faith is an exposition of the TRUTH, as Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God, God WHO is in heaven.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Good distinction.
    The common ground between the two men is obvious. A subversion of Holy Catholic Church. Even if PF doesn’t intend to hurt the Church, he is by his opinions.
    Good intentions and where they can lead is…well, not nice.

  • Philip Nachazel: Well said. Well noted.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote: “Because past popes have almost universally been ardent defenders of the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

    Well, by Knox’s definition, that is a tautology: “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”

    That popes have been singular in their views can be seen in the debate over heretical baptism, which St Stephen alone defended. As Bl John Henry Newman says, “Pope Stephen took this side then in a memorable controversy, and maintained it against almost the whole Christian world. It was a signal instance of the triumph, under Divine Providence, of a high, generous expediency over a conception of Christian doctrine, which logically indeed seemed unanswerable. One must grant indeed, as I have said, that he based his decision upon Tradition, not on expediency, but why was such a Tradition in the first instance begun? The reason of the Tradition has to be explained; and, if Stephen is not to have the credit of the large and wise views which occasioned his conduct, that credit belongs to the Popes who went before him. These he had on his side certainly, but whom had he besides them? The Apostolical Canons say, “Those who are baptized by heretics cannot be believers.” The Synods of Iconium and Synnada declare that “those who came from the heretics were to be washed and purified from the filth of their old impure leaven.” Clement of Alexandria, that “Wisdom pronounces that strange waters do not belong to her.” Firmilian, that “we recognize one only Church of God, and account baptism to belong only to the Holy Church.” “It seemed good from the beginning,” says St. Basil, “wholly to annul the baptism of heretics.” Tertullian says, “We have not the same baptism with heretics; since they have it not rightly; without, they have it not at all.” “Then may there be one baptism,” says St. Cyprian, “when there is one faith. We and heretics cannot have a common baptism, since we have not the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost in common. Heretics in their baptism are polluted by their profane water.” St. Cyril says, “None but heretics are re-baptized, since their former baptism was not baptism.” St. Athanasius asks, “Is not the rite administered by the Arians, altogether empty and unprofitable? He that is sprinkled by them is rather polluted than redeemed.” Optatus says, “The stained baptism cannot wash a man, the polluted cannot cleanse.” “The baptism of traitors.” says St. Ambrose, “does not heal, does not cleanse, but defiles.”
    Expedience is an argument which grows in cogency with the course of years; a hundred and fifty years after St. Stephen, the ecclesiastical conclusion which he had upheld was accepted generally by the School of Theologians, in an adhesion to it on the part of St. Augustine.”
    The piety and learning of all these Fathers counted for nothing; they did not have the bishop of Rome in their party.

  • “Well, by Knox’s definition, that is a tautology”

    Yes, and even a cursory study of history establishes that he is wrong.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Even a cursory study of history establishes that he is wrong.”

    I would suggest the lesson of history is the reverse: “And in fact there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”

  • Popes Honorius, Liberius and John XXII beg to differ.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Popes Honorius, Liberius and John XXII beg to differ.”

    On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the Orthodox anathematize the “Three Wicked Hierarchs,” Liberius, Honorius and Nicholas (who defied the Council of Chalcedon by tampering with the Creed). But, in the West, no one broke communion with any of them.

    As Bl John Henry Newman observes of many of the schisms in the early Church, “[T]here was, in various parts of the world, both among the educated and the uneducated, an indignant rising against this innovation, as it was conceived, of their rulers. Montanus and his sect in the East, represent the feelings of the multitude at Rome, the school of Tertullian, Novatian, and the author of the Elenchus, able and learned men, stood out in behalf of what they considered the Old Theology, terminating their course in the Novatian schism; while the learned Donatist Bishops and the mad Circumcelliones illustrate a like sentiment, and a like temper, in Africa.” All these movements were protests in favour of tradition and against what they perceived as innovation.

    The story is the same for the Assyrian Church of the East after Ephesus, the Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians after Chalcedon, with this difference that they continue their distinctive witness down to the present day.

    According to Protestant historians like Milman, “The Church came to think otherwise, and thus they found themselves de-Catholicized in the long run.” But which Church? “The Church” fixes the date of Easter, “the Church” decides that heretics need not be rebaptized, “the Church” decides that the Incarnate combined two Natures in one Person. It beggars belief that the early pontiffs just happened to find themselves on the winning side in every controversy; the only definition that holds water is that “the Church” means the church in communion with the bishop of Rome and I defy anyone to propose any other the tits the facts.

  • Bl John Henry Newman notes, “of a Council Perrone says, “Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492. Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either.”

    Again, “As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter”

    Thus St Robert Bellarmine was able to maintain that Honorius himself never held the doctrine condemned by the Council. Given that the matter was never agitated in his lifetime, it is impossible to say what explanation he might have offered. The reason is obvious enough; in condemning the Monothelite heresy, the Council was pronouncing on a question of faith and morals, but whether or not Honorius held that opinion is not.

  • The condemnation of Pope Honorius was noted in the Roman Breviary under the feast day of Pope Leo II until the Eighteenth Century. Efforts by apologists like Saint Bellarmine to pooh pooh the fact of his condemnation do them little credit.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

  • It beggars belief

    Christianity in a nutshell.

    And speaking of Honorius: more relevant now than ever.

    Honorius was pressured to react to a popular heresy Monothelitism, which held that Jesus Christ possessed only one will naturally. But the Church teaches that Jesus Christ has two inseparable but distinct wills or two distinct operations naturally. However, the Church also teaches there is only one will and one operation in Christ morally. In other words, there is no opposition between the two wills and two operations in Christ.

    Although Honorius believed the Church’s true teaching, he wanted to avoid trouble in the Church and offending the Monothelitites, one of whom was the Emperor Heraclius. Similar to today, bishops wanted clarification, but Honorius counseled silence.
    [….]
    About 40 years after Honorius died, however, the Sixth General Church Council condemned the fact that Honorius had remained silent. Pope Leo II, the successor to Pope Agatho, accepted this condemnation with some qualification.

    [….]

    Honorius’s decision was condemned—not because he actively preached falsehood or heresy—but because he “neglected” teaching the truth. As Pope Leo II pointed out, even during the silence of Honorius, the apostolic tradition and teaching remained untouched and “immaculate.”