PopeWatch: Hopeful Shack Up

Saturday, April 22, AD 2017


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



Local Catholic Becky Donaldson confirmed this week that she is absolutely confident that her live-in boyfriend of eight years, Kevin Reynolds,  will soon be proposing.

“I’m just so excited,” a teary-eyed Donaldson told some of her girlfriends gathered at a local restaurant last night. “We’ve been waiting until we’re in a financially comfortable situation. I mean, we were financially comfortable a few years ago, and then he bought the jet skis, so we’ve been working on getting financially comfortable again since then.”

Donaldson went on to say that after eight years of living with Kevin, not counting the other four years they were dating while living separately, she couldn’t wait for the wedding so that their life could finally begin.

“I imagine our lives are going to be totally different after we’re married. I mean, we’ve been living together for eight years and dating for four, and we bought this house together five years ago. We’re pretty much done having fun and I think we’re ready to settle down and start having children. I guess that’s why it’s been taking him so long to propose, you know? We just needed to live our lives before we had kids.”

Donaldson was heard later in the evening advising her younger, single friends to not get married and have children until they had done all their travelling and fun activities since “once you have children all fun stops and you die inside.”

“Not saying that living with him has all been fun and games, of course. He has annoying little quirks, but those will obviously be transformed by the magical powers of the sacrament. We don’t go to church, but I’ve heard about all the magic that the sacrament of matrimony does for a relationship, so I expect his snoring and his leaving the toilet seat up to stop soon after the wedding. Not to mention him leaving dirty dishes and empty beer bottles on the coffee table, putting his dirty clothes on the floor next to the hamper instead of inside the hamper, putting the toilet paper roll on the holder backwards, so that the tail end is against the wall and so on.”

At press time Kevin has been spotted sneaking out of the house to go shopping for jet ski trailers.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to PopeWatch: Hopeful Shack Up

  • Lol. The same is said for contraception, “oh we’ll think about having a child of another someday, right after______.”
    Hence this problem.

    No ones thinking about having children, their thinking about not having children.

  • Sorry about my miss spelling, my phone screen is small, and Siri has a mind of her own.

  • That’s right, Dolores. He’ll change after he marries you. One wonders how the divorce rate doesn’t approximate 100%.

    Wonderful! Shifting gears from recreation to procreation makes it all OK? So much for 12 years of fornication . . .

    Face it, ladies. Many men just are not that “into” you. No pun intended. Feminism (abortion, contraception, PP, my-body-my-self, etc.) is great for men on the make.

    PS: I put my empty beer can (a shot and a beer a night whether or not I need it) in the sink. And, I still get the “fish-eyes.”

    Now, I am sneaking out to buy lotto tix, er, milk.

  • Sad but true…The upside down culture.
    Take Planned Parenthood. Should be Planned Genocide.

    Today it’s sex before marriage. No one except Godly children would even consider getting married before having sex. On a positive note many good parents are actively schooling their children in chaste realities leading​ to the culture of Life.
    Thanks be to God.

  • “Today it’s sex before marriage. No one except Godly children would even consider getting married before having sex.” Is it possible that the poor wretches will ever know the joy of love?

  • Mary De Voe.

    How could they know?
    The culture has hijacked true love.
    Abortion is a proof of this false love that excludes God and replaces Him for self gratification. True Love? Only in Christ.

  • 🙄 as long as they are actively on the road to having a Catholic marriage, living in the same house might relieve some of the periphery distractions. They are able to focus on praying together, setting aside time for more difficult subjects and “learning the language”. Living apart would be incredibly difficult, as each person does not come from similar backgrounds and values. By minimizing some of the building blocks, they might have a better chance to lift the larger blocks while building their domestic church. Hopefully, by then.. maybe then “be ready to fill the pews!” 😉

  • 🙄 Everything else seems to be taking a more important precedent, than preparing for the wedding. Unless the jet skis are part of the ceremony.. that should be a warning flag as to cautionary distractions. If they are concerned about raising a family soon after getting married, that money will need to go for the nursery… and additional expenses. One more concerning flag is that if “he” is more concerned with the jet skis than getting married, then how important does he value family? If “having fun” means being selfish, how do they really view marriage? selfish marriages can mirror self-less marriages, the hall of those mirrors can lead one astray before you realize how lost you really have become. By then, be more confused than you were in the beginning. Better off, to have a strong start and try not to fall prey to distractions, but keep in check the distractions that you are cancelling out, to integrate a marriage, creating a self reflective pathway… where each can grow stronger…

PopeWatch: The Meeting

Friday, April 21, AD 2017




It’s on:



Contrary to earlier reports, President Donald Trump will meet with Pope Francis when he travels to Italy next month for meetings with the G7 leaders, U.S. and Vatican officials said Wednesday.

When asked about a possible meeting, White House press spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters that officials would be contacting the Vatican to arrange a meeting between Trump and the Pope during the latter’s visit to Italy at the end of May

“Obviously, we’d be honored to have an audience with His Holiness,” he said.

 For his part, Archbishop Angelo Becciu, the Vatican equivalent of a deputy prime minister, confirmed to the Italian news agency ANSA that “Pope Francis is always ready to receive heads of state who request an audience.”

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: The Meeting

  • That started my day off with a good laugh. Thank you, Mr. McClarey.

  • When I wasn’t hearing Mass on Sundays, I would tell my sainted Mother that I feared that the church’s chimney would fall in if I went in. The Vatican’s chimneys won’t fall in, either.

  • Trump: “Nice wall you have here, Holy Father.”
    Pope: “You should not be so against Immigration Mr President.”
    Trump: “I’m not and unlike many countries the USA is in favor of immigration. There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding.”

  • A contributor from TAC was dead on when he/she said; “Immagration? A wall exists in heaven. A gate. And an extremely important vetting process too. Did we forget that?”
    Quoting from memory here so it isn’t exact. Question is how can you be certain that the vetting process will be fair? At the very least we will keep some dangerous elements out. If this tactic saves one life..one..It is justified.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Pope, Faithful Mere Pets and Curiosities in FrancisChurch? – The Stumbling Block

PopeWatch: O’Reilly

Thursday, April 20, AD 2017





An interesting tidbit:


Embattled Fox News host Bill O’Reilly briefly met with Pope Francis at the Vatican on Wednesday, according to a New York Times report.

The report says O’Reilly, who was in a VIP section in St. Peter’s Square during the pontiff’s weekly general audience, shook hands with the religious leader as a Vatican newspaper photographer snapped a photo. 

The Times noted the “special section beside the stage holding the papal throne, where Mr. O’Reilly sat, is exclusive and entered only with special tickets distributed by the prefecture of the papal household, according to the Vatican press office.”

Tens of thousands of worshipers fill the square for the weekly event.

The Vatican had stated last week that no official audience with O’Reilly was scheduled.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to PopeWatch: O’Reilly

  • I suppose Bill was caught in the no spin zone just too long. Being all wet, he needed time to be hung out to dry.
    Another book on the horizon I’m certain.

    Pope Francis?

    All I’m asked to do for him is pray.
    So I pray.
    Conversion and clarity, for the final no spin zone is inevitable.

  • O’Reilly was at his best 17 years ago during the Elian Gonzalez controversy… was that the last time a Democrat deported anyone? Funny how Clinton let the Mexicans stay in California.

    Dennis Miller was the only watchable segment of O’Reilly’s show in later years. Miller is from Pittsburgh. Early in his broadcasting career, he interviewed my best friend on Evening Magazine about his comic book collection. I lost track of how many times I helped him move those damned comic books. Manassas, Virginia to Plum Boro, Pennsylvania… that was as much fun as a root canal.
    Sorry for going off topic.

  • In accordance with feminist/liberal “standards” for such behavior, O’R could be the Democrat POTUS candidate in 2020. It worked for William Jefferson Clinton.

    If it was not for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

  • “If it were not for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.” Love it.

  • Perhaps I am the only person here who likes Bill O’Reilly, for which I am certain to be condemned. Now I disagreed with him on some issues, and I thought he often unfairly interrupted others on his show who gave responses to his commentary. However, I do not for one minute believe these allegations of sexual misconduct. I may be deceived and if that is the case, then I shall promptly apologize. But I think that feminists simply couldn’t stand his style, being so effeminately delicate. So they conspired with trumped up changes of misconduct in an era where a person is guilty until proven innocent.

    Again, if I am wrong, then it won’t be the first time.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

    I hope your right.
    Trumped up charges in this culture by feminist who resemble the compassion of Isis, abortion loving scallywags, and would love to take out a talking head O’Reilly. A prize to hang above their condom dispenser.

  • Dunno. Some of the dirt he’s collected over the years is supposedly buttressed with recordings injurious to his reputation. The production values on Fox are designed to appeal to some set of demographics I’m not in, so I seldom watch any of their commentary programs (do they do any reporting at all?). Unlike Messrs. Trump and Cosby, his accusers have been women who were well acquainted with him.

  • I lost all interest in O’reilly when he referred to Jesus as just a philosopher. Another lame catholic.

  • I agree with you Philip. We need to pray for the ‘Pope’ but no need to follow his anti Catholicism.

  • TLM.

  • I haven’t seen O’Reilly in quite a while. I will say this for Bill O’Reilly and also Megyn Kelly, both of them were not afraid to defend the unborn on the air.

  • I have no idea if the allegations of sexual harassment by FOX employees are true or not but, isn’t it strange that the other so-called news networks never seem to have any sexual harassment scandals? Or the NY Times with many homosexual employees? It’s like the priest scandals in the Roman Catholic church, everyone knows about that, but you never or rarely hear about molestation by ministers/priests of the Protestant denominations or non Christian religions. It goes on, but never seems to be front page.

PopeWatch: Global Tolerance Initiative

Wednesday, April 19, AD 2017




One aspect of this Pontificate is how many odd events have occurred during it.  A recent example:


 Just two months after Pope Francis faced intense backlash for his reforms when critical posters were plastered around Rome, a new set went up around the city over Easter, this time praising the pope for his commitment to mercy and inclusion.

“Thank you Pope Francis! For your true Christian engagement with love and mercy, as demanded by Jesus so often in our Holy Bible.”

This was the phrase written on some 300 posters that were hung April 14 around Rome’s city center and near the Vatican, which will remain until April 22.

RELATED: Rome wakes up to find city full of anti-Pope Francis posters

Sponsored by The Global Tolerance Initiative, the posters referred to a website called “Love is Tolerance,” which explained that Francis had been named by the organization as their “Global Champion of Tolerance Easter 2017.”

Written in both Italian and English, the posters call on all cardinals, priests and bishops to follow with love the “wise advice” of the pope, and to “read our Holy Bible with open eyes, hearts and minds.”

The posters conclude with an appeal for everyone to “pray for you and the Church with a ‘thinking heart and loving mind.’”

Continue reading...

10 Responses to PopeWatch: Global Tolerance Initiative

PopeWatch: Frogs

Tuesday, April 18, AD 2017



I hope that the Pope is paying attention to what the Orthodox Metropolitan of Mosul is saying:


Security and the rule of law are what Christians most need in Iraq, but it seems no one wishes to offer them, says Metropolitan Nicodemus Dauod Matti Sharaf, the Orthodox Syriac Archbishop of Mosul.

Speaking to the Register last month in Erbil, Metropolitan Nicodemus, who was the last bishop to leave Mosul when ISIS invaded the city in 2014, had strong words for the West: he said, citing an example, that the developed world places the welfare of frogs ahead of Christians, that the West needs to wake up to the threat of Islamism, and blamed past U.S. leaders and their allies for ruining his country. He likes President Trump, saying: “Let’s try the crazy one because we tried the normal one, and he destroyed our lives.”  

The 40 year-old Orthodox prelate, who Britain banned in December despite being formally invited to meet Prince Charles, also shares his views on Islam and why he greatly values the example set by Hungary for the respect its leaders have shown for Christians.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Frogs

  • Many good quoted from the Archbishop in that article. Here is another:

    said “Those people [ISIL supporters in
    Europe] are the same ones who came here many years ago. And we accepted them. We
    are the original people in this land. We accepted them, we opened the doors for them, and
    they push us to be minorities in our land, then refugees in our land. And this will be with
    you if you don’t wake up. If you don’t wake up please tell us because we have caravans
    [house trailers for refugees]. When we go back to our villages, we won’t sell those
    caravans, we’ll leave them for you when you become refugees from your [Western]
    country. Believe me, this will be”

  • Pope Francis is unable to see or speak the truth. As a leader he has only negative effectiveness. Let us pray that he comes to his senses soon or resigns his job.

  • The Vatican and the western hierarchy opposed the American intervention in Iraq after 9/11 probably because they knew that Islam is suffering from a revival of jihadism. They know that they need the help of Muslims but seem not to understand that even the “moderates” are indifferent to the fate of the eastern churches. Or maybe it is that after Vatican Ii they have fallen prey to the pessimism and lack of confidence in their civilization that we see in most European leaders and of course the American left, of which many of our prelates are a part.

PopeWatch: Jesuits

Monday, April 17, AD 2017


One feature of this pontificate that is striking is how the intellectual and spiritual decay that has infested the Jesuits for more than half a century has suddenly become the guiding force within the Church.  Sandro Magister gives us a recent example:


Among the priests born in the diocese of Carpi, that Pope Francis will visit on Sunday, April 2, there is one who is giving him a tough nut to crack.

His name is Roberto A. Maria Bertacchini. He was formed in the school of three Jesuits of the first rank: Frs. Heinrich Pfeiffer, an art historian and professor at the Gregorian, Francesco Tata, former provincial of the Society of Jesus in Italy, and Piersandro Vanzan, a prominent writer for “La Civiltà Cattolica.” A scholar of Augustine, he is the author of books and of essays in theology journals.

Last week Fr. Bertacchini sent to Francis and to Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, a six-page “memorandum” highly critical of the ideas presented in a recent interview with the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, who is very close to the pope.

They are ideas, writes Fr. Bertacchini, “of such gravity that they cannot be passed over in silence without becoming complicit in them,” because they threaten to “result in a Christianity without Christ.”

The complete text of the “memorandum” is on this other page of Settimo Cielo:

> Promemoria…

While an abridgment of it is presented below.

The interview with the general of the Jesuits criticized by Fr. Bertacchini is the one given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi and published on the blog Rossoporpora last February 18, after the interview subject himself reviewed it word by word.

Settimo Cielo gave an extensive account of it in several languages.


On the interview with the general of the Jesuits on the reliability of the Gospels

by Roberto A. Maria Bertacchini

In February the general of the Jesuits gave an interview in which he insinuates that the words of Jesus on the indissolubility of marriage are not a point of theological stability, but rather a point of departure for doctrine, which must then be appropriately developed. This – taken to the extreme – could even lead to supporting the exact opposite, or the compatibility of divorce with Christian life. The initiative has in my view primed an explosive situation.

Of course, Arturo Sosa Abascal, SJ is very careful not to fall into outright heresy. And this, in a certain sense, is even more grave. It is therefore necessary to retrace the thread of his reasoning.

The question that he poses is whether the evangelists are reliable, and he says: it is necessary to discern. So it is not a given that they are [reliable]. Such a grave statement should be reasoned out at length and in depth, because it is indeed possible to admit error in a narrative detail; but to call into question the veracity of doctrinal teachings of Jesus is another matter.

However it may be, our Jesuit does not get involved, but – very deftly – appeals to the pope. And since Francis, in dealing with couples that are separated etcetera, up to the time of the interview had never cited passages in which Jesus referred to the indissolubility of marriage, the implicit message of our Jesuit was glaring: if the pope does not cite those passages, it means that he has done discernment and maintains that they are not of Jesus. So they would not be binding. But all the popes have taught the opposite! What does it matter? They must be wrong. Or they must have said and taught things that were correct for their time, but not for ours.

Let it be clear: the eminent Jesuit does not say this “apertis verbis,” but he insinuates it, he lets it be understood. And so he gives a key of interpretation for the pope’s pastoral approach to the family that departs from the traditional teaching. In fact, today “we know” that very probably, or rather almost certainly, Jesus never taught that marriage is indissoluble. It is the evangelists who misunderstood.

A Christianity without Christ?

The question is of such gravity that it cannot be passed over in silence without becoming complicit in it. The danger is that this could result in a Christianity reductive of the message of Jesus, or a Christianity without Christ.

In the Gospel for the Mass of last February 24 there was the passage from Mk 10:2-12 on repudiation. So is it acceptable to think that it is not known if Jesus uttered those words, and that they are not binding?

The “sensus fidei” tells us that the evangelists are reliable. However, our general of the Jesuits rejects this reliability, and in addition takes no interest in the fact that Saint Paul had also received this doctrine from the Church as being of Jesus, and handed it on as such to his communities: “To the husbands I order, not I but the Lord: the wife may not be separated from the husband, and if she separates, let her remain without remarrying or let her be reconciled with the husband, and the husband may not repudiate the wife” (1 Cor 7:10-11).

The consistency of this passage with the texts of the synoptic Gospels on repudiation and adultery is perfectly clear. And it would be absurd to imagine that these depend on Paul, and not on pre-Paschal traditions. Not only that. In Eph 5:22-33, Paul revisits the same teaching from Jesus and even reinforces it. He revisits it, because he cites the same passage of Genesis that is cited by Jesus; he reinforces it, because Christ loves the Church in an indissoluble way, to the point of giving his life, and beyond earthly life. And Paul makes this fidelity the model of conjugal fidelity.

Thus it is entirely clear that there is an evident continuity of teaching between pre-Paschal and post-Paschal preaching; and also clear is the discontinuity with Judaism, which instead kept the institution of repudiation. But if Saint Paul himself founds this discontinuity on Christ, does it make sense to bring the Gospels into question? From where comes that leap which inspired the practice of the ancient Church, if not from Christ?

It should be noted that divorce was also admitted in the Greco-Roman world, and in addition there existed the institution of concubinage, which could easily result in a subsequent conjugal union, as attested to for example by the experience of Saint Augustine. And in historiography the principle applies that cultural inertia does not change without cause. Therefore, the change being attested historically, what could be the cause if not Jesus? If this then was Christ, why doubt the reliability of the Gospels?

Finally, if Jesus did not speak those words, what is the source of the drastic comment from the disciples (“But then it is better not to marry!”) in Mt 19:10? Matthew was one of those disciples, and they do not come across well: they show themselves slow to understand and attached to the traditions that Jesus challenges. So from a historiographical point of view, the pericope of Mt 19:3-12 is entirely reliable: and as much for reasons of internal criticism as of external.

The dogmatic context

Moreover, to state that it is not known if Jesus actually uttered those words and that, in essence, they are not binding is “de facto” a heresy, because it is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture. 2 Tim 3 is very clear: “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, convincing, correcting, and training in righteousness.”

“All” evidently also includes Mt 19:3-12. Otherwise it is attested that there is an “other” word that prevails over Scripture itself and over its inspiration. In fact, affirming the unreliability of some words of Jesus is like opening a fissure in the dam of “fides quae,” a fissure that would lead to the collapse of the entire dam. I illustrate:

a) If Jesus did not say those words, the evangelists are not reliable. And if they are not reliable, they are not truthful; but if they are not truthful, neither can they be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

b) If Jesus did not say those words, must he really have said all the others that we take as good? Someone who is unreliable on one innovative question can be likewise on others, like the resurrection. And if, to give the priesthood to women, “La Civiltà Cattolica” does not hesitate to bring into question a solemn magisterium invoked as infallible, will there not be chaos? To what biblical authority can one appeal, if the exegetes themselves are perennially and ever more divided? This is the sense in which the dam collapses.

And that is not the end, because in following the doubts of the Jesuit general it is not only Saint Paul who is trodden underfoot, but also Vatican II. In fact, this is what it states in “Sacrosasnctum Concilium” 7:

“Christ is always present in His Church [. . .] He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church.”

Since the passages on the indissolubility of marriage are read at Mass, and to be precise: Mk 10:2-12 on the Friday of the 7th week of ordinary time and on the 27th Sunday of year B, Mt 19:3-12 on the Friday of the 19th week of ordinary time, and Mt 5:27-32 on the Friday of the 10th week, it follows that Vatican II in a certain way attributes those words to the authority of Jesus.

Thus those who follow the doubts of the Jesuit general not only disavow Vatican II, and moreover in a dogmatic constitution, they also doubt Tradition to the point of making abstract and unattainable the very authority of Jesus as teacher. So we are facing a genuine carpet bombing, before which the firmest of reactions is absolutely necessary.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Jesuits

  • Forgive me, but I have a mental image of Pope Francis upon reading this Memorandum becoming angry and saying “oh, this is just awful just awful, Bertacchini is using reason, clear reason, if only he wouldn’t reason, if only he would appreciate messy and unclear thinking..

  • David, His Humbleness won’t bother to read it. Sadly, I doubt he would be able to follow it.

  • Fr. Bertacchini is most courageous and inspired to confront quasi heretical thinking in his superior and most probably Pope Francis himself. Three things will now probably happen. Fr. Bertacchini will be reassigned not to be heard from again. The issues he raised will be left unaddressed. Hardly anyone in the clergy will come to his defense. And the thing is Fr. Bertacchini no doubt realized this would be the probably outcome but did it anyway. That’s what makes him a hero.

  • I was left with the same impression when I read the comment from the “Black pope.” Of course I could never have produced this irrefutable argument.

  • My Italian isn’t great, but it seems like you left out an important point: that the article states that the Holy Father specifically rebuked the Jesuit leader (who claimed that Pope Francis has never referred to the passage where Jesus condemns divorce) by referring to the passage six days later in a homily.

PopeWatch: Checkmate

Saturday, April 8, AD 2017


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


Society of St. Pius X chess grandmaster Larcel Mafebvre has turned four of his pieces into bishops without approval from the World Chess Federation, officials have confirmed.

“Mr. Mafebvre has, without approval from the Federation, created bishops out of pawn pieces,” said World Chess Federation head Antonio Salamanca. “After speaking with Mr. Mafebvre regarding abiding by the new chess rules, wherein players are given the freedom to concelebrate the match, and to say the words of ‘checkmate’ in the vernacular, he has sadly decided to ignore our requests.”

Salamanca went on to tell reporters that Mafebvre had automatically incurred excheckommunication because of his disobedience.

“I must do what is in my conscience to preserve the dignity of the game,”  Mafebvre told EOTT in an exclusive interview. “Therefore, I have decided to consecrate four of my pieces into bishops to help my depleted side, for, from some Fischer, the smoke of Satan has entered the chessboard of God.”

At press time, one time follower of Larcel Mafebvre’s, Bavid Dawden, told EOTT that he has decided to become head of the World Chess Federation, though he only has three pawns to play with.

Continue reading...

PopeWatch: Separated at Birth

Thursday, April 6, AD 2017


Carl Olsen at The Catholic World Report something that has frequently struck PopeWatch:  how similar Pope Francis and President Trump are:


As I’ve stated before, Francis often seems more comfortable being a politician than a pope. And, I would argue, he does indeed seek popularity; that is, I think, blatantly obvious. He follows a very simple and consistent course: he seeks to win over certain people or groups of people while lashing out at those he perceives as enemies, almost always resorting to a rather astounding list names and, yes, labels rather than any sort of arguments—that would be the “firm stance regarding critics.”

Giangravè concludes by asserting: “Populism is not so much a phenomenon as a utility belt, one that Pope Francis is well equipped to use. But when it comes to what to use it for, the pope chooses to focus on the root causes of the problem, such as poverty and inequality, rather than its symptoms.”

And how is this different, say, than what Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders did in the recent presidential election? Both of them continually, in their own ways, reached out to those on the margins, claimed to the champion of the poor and those barely making it, and campaigning for the votes and support of the blue collar workers ignored or scorned by the elites. Pope Francis presents himself as a champion of the poor and ignored; Trump and Sanders presented themselves as the champions of the poor, the blue collar, and the disenfranchised. There are some differences, of course, as Francis is not campaigning for votes. Yet he reaches out to the nameless, downtrodden masses—and often does in political, “us vs. them” terms. And, besides, does anyone doubt that Trump and Sanders (among others) don’t use such their populism in calculated, utilitarian ways? And didn’t both men, whatever their respective policy positions, address poverty and inequality in many different ways (answer: yes).

The spate of recent pieces about Francis as the “anti-Trump” fixated, naturally, on differences over immigration and economics, but ignored the striking similarities in both methodologies and personalities. Both men are scolding or even verbally abusive, emotive, crafty but not interested in nuance or careful distinctions, impatient with details, pragmatic in an often superficial fashion, confusing or ambiguous in language and action, temperamental, autocratic, and—I would suggest—rather incompetent. Such characteristics aren’t uncommon in populists, who use their appeals to certain groups to cover up serious deficiencies or contradictions.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Separated at Birth

  • DaDonald and DaDon, the Caudillo Brothers.

  • Curious that while the Pope and Trump are supposedly so much the same, it is interesting to consider that those who generally support the Pope don’t support Trump and visa versa
    For orthodox Catholics the Pope is an embarrassment to himself and the Church; for conservative Republicans Trump is an embarrassment to himself and the Republican Party.

  • Sorry, I don’t see the comparison. Who our Pope does remind me of is Obama. This is why this Pope sent my radar to twitch from the start.

  • I’m not seeing the analogy, either. Trump is a vulgar and exhibitionistic man, unscrupulous in many of his dealings, but also oddly capable in some others. He’s off on some unfathomable lark going into politics, and I doubt will understand his administration until it’s long over. Francis is a common clerical type and he’s jonesing for the approval of the modal type of parish clergyman and the modal type of (occidental) parishioner. If the survey research I’ve seen referred to is not a false meme, about 2/3 of the people who show up for Mass are not shuffling into the confessional even once a year. A great many parish priests are perfectly happy with that (along with the issue of OcRaP Press).

  • The Holy Father comes from that cadre of Latin priests who rather scorned John Paul II as the Polish pope. Even Mexican priests with the example of the ‘20s seem to have sided with those in the Polish hierarchy who were willing to live with the scraps left by the politicians.

  • Maybe not separated at birth, but they use the same cologne.

    Eue d’ ¡Hagan Lio!

    I hear it smells like La Revolución

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Open Thread

  • Watch what?

  • Today is the 100th anniversary of our entry into the Great War. Reminding me that Leo XIII wrote an encyclical at the start of his reign lamenting how Europe listen so much to the guidance of the papacy. France, Italy, Germany, England, Russia, even Austria largely disregarded his exhortations and blindly pursued the accumulation of wealth and power, full of pride in their domination of the world. Then came the collapse of wager Barbara Tuchman described a “proud Tower” in the disaster of the Great War. At the end of 19i4, even when it was obvious that no side could win, Pope Benedict called for an end to hostilities and a beginning of negotiations. The leaders of Europe merely doubled their determination to win. Thus began thirds years of rack and ruin for Europe. For the “Christian’Powers has already forgotten Christ. Today they are even more blind to reality. Rome has become become Corinth.

  • “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” As when two souls give informed consent to become one flesh as in marriage and when God joins the immortal human soul to the physical human body, no man may put asunder. This would be the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill” Eternal life is predicated on God joining the human soul with the human body forever.
    The human being may not be desecrated by amputation except to save the human being’s life. Transgendering, vasectomy, tubal ligation, body piercing, even tatooing are disordered.
    It is disingenuous that anyone would vie for the office at the Vatican of The Vicar of Christ.
    Love and Justice are one way streets. MERCY is a two way street. Unless the soul accepts God’s mercy on God’s terms, God’s mercy takes no effect on the soul. A human mercy without God is just that: human mercy. Human mercy without God is atheism.

PopeWatch: Conspiracy

Tuesday, April 4, AD 2017



Sandro Magister discusses the conspiracy that was launched to make Pope Francis Pope:


There is however one key factor that meets the expectations of a historic turning point of the Church capable of making up for its emblematic lag of “two hundred years” with respect to the modern world that was denounced by Carlo Maria Martini, the cardinal who loved to call himself the “ante-pope,” meaning the anticipator of the one who was to come. And it is the factor of “time.” Which for Bergoglio is a synonym for “initiating processes.” The destination matters little to him, because what counts is the journey.

And in effect it is so. With Francis the Church has become an open construction site. Everything is in movement. Everything is fluid. There is no longer dogma that holds up. One can reexamine everything and act accordingly.

Martini was precisely the sharpest mind of that club of St. Gallen which engineered Bergoglio’s rise to the papacy. It took its name from the Swiss town in which the club met, and included the cardinals Walter Kasper, Karl Lehmann, Achille Silvestrini, Basil Hume, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Godfried Danneels. Of these only two, Kasper and Danneels, are still at the forefront, rewarded and treated with the highest regard by Pope Francis, in spite of the fact that they represent two national Churches in disarray, the German and the Belgian, and the latter even fell into discredit in 2010 for how he tried to cover up the sexual misdeeds of one of his protege bishops, whose victim was a young nephew of his.

Bergoglio never set foot in St. Gallen. It was the cardinals of the club who adopted him as their ideal candidate, and he adapted himself perfectly to their plan.

Everyone in Argentina remembers him very differently from how he later revealed himself to the world as pope. Taciturn, withdrawn, somber in expression, reserved even with crowds. Not once did he let slip a word or a gesture of disagreement with the reigning pontiffs, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. On the contrary. He praised in writing the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” very severe against the permissive “situational” ethics historically attributed to the Jesuits. He had no qualms over condemning Luther and Calvin as the worst enemies of the Church and of man. He attributed to the devil the deception of a law in favor of homosexual marriage.

But then he sent back home, “to avoid mixed messages,” the Catholics who had gathered outside of parliament for a prayer vigil against the imminent approval of that law. He knelt and had himself blessed in public by a Protestant pastor. He forged friendships with some of them, and also with a Jewish rabbi.

Above all he encouraged his priests not to deny communion to anyone, whether they be married, or cohabiting, or divorced and remarried. With no fuss and without making this decision public, the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires was already doing what the popes at the time prohibited, but he would later permit once he became pope.

In St. Gallen they knew and were taking note. And when Bergoglio was elected, the world learned to recognize him right from the first moment for what he really was. With no more veils.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Conspiracy

  • Daniel’s interpretation might be revisited in the case of the former archbishop of Buenos​ Aires; Mene, Mene,Tekel, Upharsin.

    I don’t believe God’s Church will fall, not at all. Francis’ (kingdom is finished.)
    His pontificate is being”weighed in the balance,” and my guess is that it will be found wanting.

    The use of the Sacred vessels was an abomination before God, in King Belshazzar’s case. And today? Holy Communion?

    My hunch is that Pope Francis will not have many years at the Chair.

  • Seriously? Why do you post this dribble? How much hear-say can be packed into one article? Apparently, quite a bit.

    This is exactly why I no longer trust “Catholic” media. They have become wretched hives of villainy and scumbaggery.

  • We will somehow soldier on without you Andrew. By the way, hear-say is a legal term. Hear-say is not excluded from legal proceedings because it is unreliable, but because it is not subject to cross examination. Outside of courts we all rely heavily on hear-say each and every day. Ignoring bad news does not make it go away but rather makes the person doing so blind.

  • This is further proof that not only the smoke of Satan is present but the fire. In the mind of God this must be a purification process about which we understand little. Let us pray for perseverance.

  • I’ve stopped trying to figure out why a defender of the Faith that should be of par-excellence caliber, is content to ignore a request for clarification on communion for those living in less than favorable conditions. Instead, I’m trying my best to pray for his discernment on listening to the Holy Spirit.
    His soul is immortal as ours, yet his responsibility to defend the Faith and faithful is enormous. A shepherd must be diligent in leading his flock away from wolves and poisoned watering holes. To invite a pig to speak at the Vatican is poisoning the water; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/experts-blast-vaticans-scandalous-decision-to-host-pro-abort-population-bom

    Who is the Good Shepherd and his mouthpiece?

    I’d say Jesus and Cardinal Burke.

    Francis is lacking in good judgement Andy. But hey…Catholics voted in the likes of Obama. The faithful have been drinking the poison for years.

  • Revision.

    Last sentence should read; “Some of the faithful have been drinking the poison for years.”

PopeWatch: Missed This One

Monday, April 3, AD 2017

Apparently a new papal exhortation was issued on April 1:

Pope Francis issued an unexpected apostolic exhortation today titled Merdae Cumulus. The exhortation may be the most momentous action coming from the Seat of Peter in recorded history.

Beginning with Church appointments and new canonizations; after the Holy See’s most recent debacle with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Pope Francis decided to remove Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager from his position as Grand Chancellor of the Order in favor of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who Francis referred to as “a true warrior, a worthy heir for a position occupied by great Christian knights of old.” In addition to this appointment, Francis revealed the future pronouncement that Joel Olsteen is to be declared a Doctor of the Church upon his death, and that the seat of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston will be relocated to Lakewood Church, known for it’s awe inspiring architectural style and it’s past function as the home of the Houston Rockets.

The bulk of the exhortation is composed of a string of admissions, concessions, apologies, and affirmations composed by the Holy Father. Perhaps the most exciting is an admission of the superiority of the Protestant movement started in the 16th century by the newly canonized Martin Luther. In the document, Francis states: “Saint Martin Luther was correct in stating that the holy fathers have erred, that the apostles have erred, that the magisterium has erred, and that the whole church has often erred. That error ends now. The saying that the Protestant churches are where heresy goes to thrive is false; it is actually the case that the opposite is true.” In the same vein was a statement regaling that Thomas More died for nothing, and that King Henry VIII was completely justified in his legal actions and formation of the Church of England. In the same spirit of humility and unity, Francis made full concessions of past Roman Catholic assertions regarding theological differences and papal authority to all Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs; this was quickly followed by Francis’ submission to all the demands of the Society of Saint Pius X, and the return of their status to full communion with the Roman See. Both the Orthodox churches and the Society of Saint Pius X have yet to respond to our requests for comment.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Missed This One

  • Haha…Lol.

    There’s only one thing stranger than a clown mass…a clown wedding.

    I’m so happy that he stated; “That error ends now.” It’s about time!
    Now we can invest in drive-thru communion service operations.
    In and Out…..It not just burgers anymore.
    McJesus. Serving over a billion.

  • The devil cannot stand being ridiculed. Good job.

  • “Merdae cumulus” , if my vague recolection of Latin is serving me well, means – “a pile of poo”.
    Better translated in the vernacular as – a load of b***s**t. A very accurate assessment of what is happening in our Church today. I’d better not say any more – what more can be said?

  • Ecclesia Mellow
    Guy McClung
    Catholic Lane 4/4/2017
    Go and sin, sin on more.
    Mercy, my mercy, sin galore!
    The joy of love, not the sword,
    No division, praise me lord!
    An eye offends? That’s OK,
    Look again, not away.
    Fire everlasting not forever.
    Eternal damning, never, never.
    “Yes is yes” hurts so much.
    “No is no” is out of touch.
    No dog vomits, none returns.
    No sow wallows, no one burns.
    A rigid cross so unreal,
    Good news logic, feel, feel, feel.
    I need a church so I can sin, no hell;
    A mercy church, so all is well.
    Go and sin, sin on more.
    Mercy, my mercy, sin galore!

    Guy McClung, San Antonio TX

  • Ecclesia Mellow.

    Nice work Guy McClung.

PopeWatch: Diplomatic Jesus

Saturday, April 1, AD 2017


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

Cincinnati, OH––Catholic book publisher and distributer St. Clare Press announced today that their new non-confrontational translation of the Bible will be released sometime this September. St. Clare executive Roger Hammond told the press this week that he hopes the new translation helps to appease the minds of critics that have long called the Bible violent and judgmental. “It took close to a decade to complete this ambitious translation, and we’re confident it’ll help people better understand the all-encompassing compassion contained within the scriptures. Hammond goes on to explain one of the most riveting scenes in the New Testament where Jesus, after having overturned the tables of the money changers, goes back to help clean up, apologizing profusely as he does so. Another scene in which the compassion and kindness of Jesus shines forth is Matthew 16:23 where, after having been asked by Peter to not enter Jerusalem and eventually into the hands of the Pharisees, Jesus asks Peter to “hold that thought for a moment,” before addressing Satan; “Satan, if you wouldn’t moving just a tad bit behind me? I’d really like to get this little point across to Peter. I feel so rude asking you this, but…I mean don’t go out of your way or anything…” Hammond went on to tell reporters that the project has become a kind of therapy for all those involved in the project. One employee of St. Clare Press, Beverly Tomas, said that seeing Christ in a new, more tender, and compassionate way helped her get over years of abuse she suffered by “strict and judgmental nuns.” “I remember sitting back just a year ago and reading a newly translated verse in which the old Christ would’ve said something like “Woe to you, Pharisees, you hypocrites,” but now he gently places a hand on the shoulder of a Pharisee, pleadingly, and says,”Come on guys…I was gonna call you a whited-washed sepulchers, but honestly, I don’t think you’re a bad person…I just think maybe you’re hurting,” and lightly tapping the Pharisee on the chest, Jesus said unto him, “Hey, guy…you wanna know what I think? I think you’re hurting inside…hurting right there in that big ol’ heart of yours. Is that’s why you’re acting like this? Wanna talk about it?”


Continue reading...

One Response to PopeWatch: Diplomatic Jesus

  • I like the new interpretation where Jesus is telling the woman at the well; “Hey it’s okay….One, four, FIVE husband’s..It doesn’t matter…As long as your happy.”

    Happiness and good well water.
    What else is there?

PopeWatch: Judas and the Beggar

Friday, March 31, AD 2017


An interesting difference between the Pope and a Bishop.


A month after Pope Francis endorsed giving money to panhandlers, the Roman Catholic bishop in Rhode Island has posted three reasons not to.

Pope Francis was asked last month by an Italian magazine for the homeless “if it is right to give alms to people who ask for help on the street,” according to a transcript of the interview posted on the Vatican website. He replied that there are many arguments to justify not giving money, such as being concerned the person will go buy himself wine. But, Francis said, “Help is always right.”

He added that when people give, they should do so not by throwing coins, but by looking the person in the eye and touching their hands.

Bishop Thomas Tobin, who has previously criticized Francis, posted a Facebook message Tuesday entitled “Three Reasons Not to Give to Panhandlers.” Tobin’s spokeswoman said the post was prompted by recent local debate on the panhandling issue, not in response to anything Pope Francis has said.

Tobin said it can be a safety hazard if someone standing on a curb or roadway is asking for help, and said the practice enables dishonest people to prey upon others’ compassion when they do not have legitimate needs. He also said throwing loose change at a panhandler is demeaning to that person’s dignity.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to PopeWatch: Judas and the Beggar

  • That is an interesting tale (Judas tossing money absent-mindedly?) since it was his addictive thirst for money that may have cost him paradise.
    I often have the same feeling of doubt (about where the charity money is going) when a “Bishop’s collection” is asking.

  • In Biblical times, beggars were blind, crippled, or otherwise incapable of making “a living.” Today, not so much.

    True story: A panhandler would stand outside a NYC breakfast café asking for money. One morning, a co-worker, who grew up in Minnesota, went inside, bought a buttered roll, and gave it to the man. The man told him he didn’t want it. My friend was shocked. Better to put money in the Church poor box, or send a check to St. Vincent de Paul Society. That being said, I used to give to panhandlers as an act of penance.

    Each Lent, I “try” to read all the Gospels. Of course, I note the four evangelists’ treatments of well-known Gospel themes. It is often noteworthy how some are related in all four and some only one Gospel. (I have a Catholic HS textbook which cross-references the Gospel chapters and verses) Regarding the woman at Bethany who anointed Our Lord with expensive perfume; three Gospels (Luke doesn’t have it) have it and teach the vital lesson is that the woman will be remembered for what she did (the Spiritual charity) for Jesus. A lesser theme is that the money (from selling the perfume) could have been given to the poor (who will always be with you) but it was appropriate to anoint Our Lord. St. Matthew states that disciples were angry. St. Mark states that some of the people were angry. St. John (12:4- 6) names Judas as the complainant. St. John also states Judas didn’t care about the poor, but was helping himself with coins from the Apostolic purse, which he controlled. Was Judas looking for a Worldly messiah? Was Judas more concerned for money (30 pieces of silver, the price of a man) than the Kingdom of God? How could a man who walked and talked with Our Lord betray him?

  • “In Biblical times, beggars were blind, crippled, or otherwise incapable of making “a living.””

    Or faking it. Professional beggars are as old as Sumer.

  • T.Shaw, I try to do much like your friend and give food to beggers. More than once I’ve handed over a doggie bag I had brought from a restaurant and I’m trying to figure out some “cookie project” thing where I get a dessert or treat from a place (usually cookies) and hand those to the first needy person I see.

    But I know it’s not enough. I was listening to this podcast and the guy talking on it made it a really excellent point: most of what today’s poor are in need of is social capital, not monetary capital. And despite being free, it’s so much harder to give that to people.

  • When a panhandler approaches me on the street for a handout, I ask if I can bring him to the AA meeting to which I am about to go where there is hot coffee and fresh (well, maybe not so fresh) cookies. The answer is always NO. End of story.

    NO FREE HANDOUTS! That was one of the unspoken rules my 2nd 12 step sponsor gave me some 30 years ago. “Bring him to a meeting,” he would always say. But never any money. And his sponsor, a Franciscan priest at the Greymoor Monestary in Putnam County, NY, and my priest confessor, would always agree with him.


  • We lived outside of Boston in the early 90s so my husband would take the T into the city for classes. At the entrance to the T station downtown
    there was a fella living in a refrigerator box. My husband went to hand him some money and he said no; he just wanted something to eat so my husband handed over his bag lunch. From then on I made two sandwiches for his lunch. Sometimes the homeless man was there; sometimes he was not. The number of homeless showing up in Braintree increased dramatically when the town became the last stop on the T. The local priest told us he often had men showing up at the rectory asking for money. He refused to give them money but always had $5 gift certificates to the McDonalds down the street. For awhile in one city there was a group of men and women show up in a shopping center parking lot with cards printed in English asking for money. They appeared to be Central Asian/Mid-eastern. It was closing time at the local coffee shop so I asked waitress for the day’s leftovers. She gave me two big bags of rolls and pastries. When I handed them to the woman she gave the breads back to me and said, “We want money.” In rather good English at that. That said it is hard to see someone apparently in need and not hand them a dollar bill.

  • I generally give money to anyone who asks. But am never sure I am doing the right thing.

  • Saint Mary of Mercy Parish in downtown Pittsburgh has, for many years, operated the Red Door Program. There is a red door at the back of the church building along the Boulevard of the Allies. Every day except Sunday a bagged lunch is offered to anyone who comes to the door and asks. I have contributed to this program through the United Way for I don’t know how many years. Inside the church there is a sign asking those attending Mass or going to Confession or the rosary that they NOT give money to panhandlers, who frequently congregate at the front door of the church. I have followed that advice. Through a reputable charity, I will give money to help poor and homeless people. I won’t give cash to someone asking for it so he can go to the liquor store on Liberty Avenue or go buy illegal drugs. These people know where they can go to get a hot meal or clothing or other assistance. I can’t make them accept that help.

    Inside one of the office buildings leased by my employer is a public area with a food court. There is a cafe and bake shop that donates the unsold inventory at the end of each day to nearby charities so none of it goes to waste.

  • The last time I gave a beggar money I told him the truth, that I was nearly broke myself, and I asked him to pray for me. Besides my need for prayer, perhaps he needed the motivation. A win-win moment?

PopeWatch: They Have the Buildings, We Have the Faith

Thursday, March 30, AD 2017


As this Pontificate winds on its merry way my fondness for Saint Athanasius grows.  In writing to Catholics dismayed because Arian heretics had been placed in control of the Church in the Eastern Empire, Saint Athanasius wrote:

May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there. (After a little:) But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’ Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, ‘Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee,’ but ‘My Father Who is in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them?

For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and [gain] no advantage by the church alone. For the truth of things is judged…

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: They Have the Buildings, We Have the Faith

  • Thank you, Donald McClarey. I love St. Athanasius, for he writes beautifully about the Catholic Faith. The translation however suffers. “For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, …” must be: “For behold they WHO hold the Place are charged by them WHO love God with making it a den of thieves, …” Even the devil is a person WHO has forfeit his sovereignty over himself to say “NO” to God. Later on in the piece the person is referred to as “WHO”. “WHO” denotes the PERSON.

  • The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church ABS was born into in 1948 no longer exists outside the Caves of Covadonga; SSPX, FSSP, ICK etc.

    One prays that in those caves many Pelayos are being formed who will go to war against the revolutionaries who control the Hierarchy to such an extent that putative courageous cardinals quail at the idea of publicly confronting Franciscus.

    They could start slowly and identify how his praxis is perplexing before, slowly, spiritually rounding that up to heresy.

  • But if any are tied in any way to the false church by written agreements with compromises, how can they consider themselves to not be in THEIR buildings and to be in the caves? They have not been kicked out but are indeed united to it.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: St. Athanasius, Save Us From These Pro-Death FrancisFiends! – The Stumbling Block
  • Very encouraging in these times! We need to hear this! Thank You!

  • Thank you, Donald McClarey. I love St. Athanasius, for he writes beautifully about the Catholic Faith. The translation however suffers. “For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, …” must be: “For behold they WHO hold the Place are charged by them WHO love God with making it a den of thieves, …” Even the devil is a person WHO has forfeit his sovereignty over himself to say “NO” to God. Later on in the piece the person is referred to as “WHO”. “WHO” denotes the PERSON.

    In the olden says “that” could be used for both people and objects; hence in the BCP translation of the Lord’s Prayer, it has “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive THEM that trespass against us.”

  • “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive THEM that trespass against us.” “…as we forgive them WHO trespass against us.” Who is the Holy Spirit. “That” refers to the physical while objectifying the spiritual. People are WHOs because of the image and likeness of God in WHOM people are created. God’s Name is “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM WHO IS” Some outside the Catholic Bible refer to God as a “that” and a “which”. Some refer to other people as “that” and “which” . Would refers to yourself as “that” and “which” instead of WHO? All the little WHOS in Whoville will miss you for WHObilation. I do not know what the BCP translation is? I do know that all sovereign persons are referred to as WHO.

  • Correction: Would you refer to yourself as “that” and “which” instead of WHO?

  • That same “who” or “what” issue crops us so many times and I always react to it as you do Mary De Vie
    I also love the strength and feisty faith of Athanasius.
    He says ‘For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us.’
    The only problem that wears at me is that the “us’ suffers decimation in the meanwhile. Maybe not the “us” but many souls who do not know any better.

  • Good point Donald. Who needs the building anyway when they stand for nothing or even worse than nothing? Let us hold to the true faith and worship God within us.

  • “….But the Faith within you.”

    You are the Holy Catholic Church to everyone you meet. Especially the unchurched. The wanderer who has chosen to go it alone.

    “The Faith is sufficient for us.”

    Each of us has the privilege and responsibility to be the reflection of the true light, just as the moon reflects the brilliance of the sun. Those that know you know that you are a beacon of light.
    That is why they ask you for prayers.

    Indeed, the Faith within you is sufficient and extraordinary as it can nurture the sanctification of your soul and then the help in the sanctification of your neighbors soul.

    Sanctifying grace is a sharing in God’s work and continues on as long as we don’t get in His way. John 3:30 ..”He must increase and I must decrease.”

    If you received Jesus from the hands of a poor Priest who is suffering in unrepentant sins or from a humble Priest that just received reconciliation a hour before Mass…You are still receiving Jesus… Fully.

    Praise God.


    Five times banished
    Exiled seventeen
    Excommunicated champions
    God puts at each scene.

    Saint Athanasius,
    Feast day of worth
    On the second of May
    The month of great mirth.

    Out in the deserts –
    As history has charted –
    You preserved the true Mass
    Great lion-hearted.

    Now Lefebvre
    And the sixties egalitarians
    Like Athanasius,
    His time his Arians.

    For He who abolished
    Death by death
    Sent him to absolve
    Sin width and breadth.

    And yes the same moon
    The same sun we’re all under…
    We venal rain – but Lefebvre

    Righteous thunder!!


    Five times banished
    Exiled seventeen
    Excommunicated champions
    God puts at each scene.

    Saint Athanasius,
    Feast day of worth
    On the second of May
    The month of great mirth.

    Out in the deserts –
    As history has charted –
    You preserved the true Mass
    Great lion-hearted.

    Now Lefebvre
    And the sixties egalitarians
    Like Athanasius,
    His time his Arians.

    For He who abolished
    Death by death
    Sent him to absolve
    Sin width and breadth.

    And yes the same moon
    The same sun we’re all under…
    We venal rain – but Lefebvre

    Righteous thunder!!

  • If the Supreme Sovereign Being’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”(there can be ony one Supreme Sovereign Being) and man is made in the image of The Supreme Sovereign Being (as all men are created equal but are unique persons), man must be referred to as “WHO”. “That”and “What” are insults and referring to The Supreme Sovereign Being as a thing is blasphemy.

  • …because all things are finite. All physical things are created finite, created with a beginning and with an end. The rational human soul, made in the image of God, has a beginning and is immortal, that is, the rational human soul has no physical matter to corrupt. The human soul is created and is therefore not infinite, that is, without beginning and without end.
    Only The Supreme Sovereign Being is infinite, that is, without beginning and without end. God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”, and “I AM WHO IS.”
    The breath of life in man, man’s rational, immortal soul made in the image of God must be referred to as “WHO”.
    Anzlyne. Frightening for me to hear at Mass is : ” For all the FAITHFUL here assembled.” Jesus , I trust in you.

PopeWatch: Ban the Bomb

Wednesday, March 29, AD 2017



Pope Francis has called for banning all nukes:


ROME – Pope Francis has called for a “collective and concerted” multilateral effort to eliminate nuclear weapons, telling a United Nations conference working on a treaty to prohibit such weapons that international peace and stability “cannot be based on a false sense of security, on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a balance of power.”

The conference took place March 27 in New York, after the UN General Assembly voted in December to negotiate a legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, with the aim of working toward their total elimination.

Such a treaty would make explicit what is implied in the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which calls on declared nuclear powers to aim for complete nuclear disarmament.

The talks seemed doomed from the start, since every state with nuclear weapons – including the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council – boycotted the congress.

Nikki Haley, the U.S. representative to the UN, said she “would love to have a ban on nuclear weapons, but in this day and time we can’t honestly say we can protect our people by allowing bad actors to have them and those of us that are good trying to keep peace and safety not to have them,” specifically mentioning the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea.

The pontiff answered these objections directly in a letter to the congress, noting the current “unstable climate of conflict” might not seem the best time to approach the “demanding and forward looking goal” of nuclear non-proliferation, and even nuclear disarmament.

However, the pope said nuclear deterrence is ineffective against the principal threats in the twenty-first century, mentioning in particular terrorism, asymmetrical conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental problems, and poverty.

“These concerns are even greater when we consider the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that would follow from any use of nuclear weapons, with devastating, indiscriminate and uncontainable effects, over time and space,” Francis writes, adding “we need also to ask ourselves how sustainable is a stability based on fear, when it actually increases fear and undermines relationships of trust between peoples.”

The pope said the world needs to go beyond nuclear deterrence: “The international community is called upon to adopt forward-looking strategies to promote the goal of peace and stability and to avoid short-sighted approaches to the problems surrounding national and international security.”

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: Ban the Bomb

  • MAD doesn’t work?

    His Holiness assumes much not in evidence.

  • I notice, Donald, you wrote you had a “few” questions. I’m certain your list could be much longer. But really, let’s just get to the heart of the problem. Why didn’t the Pope just propose a ban on mean people? That way, even if nuclear weapons existed, there would be no worries. Everyone would be nice. He’s just the man to propose something that will truly benefit all mankind. Thank God for Pope Francis.

  • It is not as if President Trump needs another reason to defund the UN.

    Mutually assured destruction worked in the Cold War. Chamberlain-style appeasement, and the so-called League of Nations’ arms restrictions on Germany, didn’t work in the first half of the 20th century, when cold reality crushed sunny theory and unicorn farts.

    There are only two outcomes of appeasement: surrender or war. The reality is that there are lunatics (Hitler, Stalin, Kim) that will never honestly respond to a generous gesture.

    Here we have a secular humanist (globalist elite) essay about perfecting the World, which is the only World we have, and which we must feverishly work to make better.

  • “Why didn’t the Pope just propose a ban on mean people?”

    Comment of the week F7!

    Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Very hard to imagine a situation in which use of such weapons could be done in a morally licit way. Yet the situation is such that many bad actors have these weapons, and the most plausible way of deterring their use is our own arsenal. Not an ideal situation, but until and unless the bad guys get rid of them in a verifiable way, our continued possession of them must continue as a deterrence.

    The Pope is merely stating the obvious, that the existence of these weapons is a tragedy, since even one use of a modern warhead would have devastating consequences on innocent noncombatants. I don’t think opposing the existence and maintenance of these wretched weapons is some kind of pacifist, tree-hugging, “librul” position, it’s the consistent Catholic position since the time they were developed. If they could be gotten rid of, it would be a net moral gain for humanity.

  • “The Pope is merely stating the obvious, that the existence of these weapons is a tragedy,”

    Nope, he is calling for their elimination without caring a fig about the practical difficulties that prevent such a policy from having an ending that does not involve the use of nuclear weapons by some very bad actors. Good intentions are never a substitute for intelligence.

  • The Pope’s remarks ever remind one of recycled opinion journalism, like he had a mind which consisted of back issues of The Nation (with a few copies of Commonweal tossed in).

  • Clerics have have spent not a single day aboard a nuclear submarine or in a Trident missile silo should shut their freaking mouths about nuclear weapons. They do NOT get to have an opinion. We gave this Argentinian Marxist Peronist the freedom he abuses to spout froth his liberal progressive feminist nonsense.

    I despise the Church of Jorge Bergoglio.

  • Can Death, War, Famine and Pestilence ever be eradicated?

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Open Your Heart and Your Brain to the Faithless FrancisGospel – The Stumbling Block
  • FYI, due to a lack of berthing space on a 688 class submarine, I slept next to one of these in the torpedo room.


    I was a junior reactor operator back aft in Engineering, and as such had no choice where I berthed. Nevertheless, death from below was a real deterrent. However, my real hope wasn’t that we would never have to use these, but that as we did angles and dangles, the metallic straps securing the weapon would not let loose and pancake me beneath a metal tube containing solid rocket fuel, plutonium-239 and deuterium-tritium.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus: I have always held your great sacrifice in high esteem. Thank you for your service. I know it was not easy. God bless and keep you always.

  • Pope needs to advocate prayer not pie in the sky pieties.

  • The BOMB?

    This is the BOMB our pontiff should be concerned about;


    This insidious weapon kills body and soul.

  • Philip Nachazel: Thank you for the link. Forty three years and sixty million human souls later, the civil right of “We, the people” to our constitutional Posterity is the eternal truth.

    In atheistic communism, “We, the people” must follow the dictates of the Party. “We, the people” have no right to think, to say or to do what the human soul in search of God indicates. “We, the people must disenfranchise ourselves of our conscience, our civil rights and our freedom. “We, the people” must do what the Party dictates.
    Michael Dowd: My exact thought, “with a reliance on the support of divine Providence.” (Declaration)

PopeWatch: Peron the Papal Role Model

Tuesday, March 28, AD 2017



John-Henry Westen at Lifesite News conveys some observations of the Pope by an Argentinian priest:


For those who knew Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio prior to his election to the pontificate, this is nothing new. I spoke to a few priests from Buenos Aires who worked with Cardinal Bergoglio in different capacities and from them learned that confusion is emblematic of his ministry. One anecdote in particular was very instructive. I was told that people from opposite camps would both come out of meetings with Cardinal Bergoglio believing he supported their position. “He’s with us but can’t say so publicly,” they would relate, as would those who met with him from the opposing camp.

While in an archdiocese this may work for a time, this learned priest told me, in the Vatican where just about everything the Pope says is trumpeted to the world, these kinds of discrepancies become evident more quickly. Francis, the priest told me, is very much a Peronist — named for former Argentina President Juan Domingo Perón. Like Perón, Pope Francis plays with both left wing and right wing factions.  

The priest tells a story about President Peron that helps to understand Francis. Once Peron was in his car and at a fork in the road his driver asked him which way he would like to go, to which Peron replied: “Put the flicker on for a right turn, but go left.” One last note about Bergoglio, related by the priest, is that when pushed, he will go left out of a great apprehension of being labeled a right-winger by the media.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to PopeWatch: Peron the Papal Role Model

PopeWatch: Hmmm

Monday, March 27, AD 2017



From Pewsitter:



Speaking at a March 16th conference in Limburg, Germany, the long-time Vatican correspondent Andreas Englisch has delivered an explosive allegation: In contradiction of public appearances, Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI “are in complete disagreement” and “never speak to one another.” The Pope Emeritus has apparently stated that he only appears in public “at the explicit request of Pope Francis.” What is shown on these occasions, Englisch continues, is “only the pretense of friendship.”

No official transcript of the press conference is yet available, but Giuseppe Nardi, another well-known Vaticanist who was in attendance, says that Englisch continued his statements by describing Pope Francis as a “strong personality” who “gets what he wants,” and that he has little in common with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI but “uses him when necessary for the optics.” Englisch concluded his dramatic remarks with a remarkable statement: that, in addition to the pressure put upon the Pope Emeritus to resign, “different ecclesiastical forces” are putting pressure on Ratzinger in a different direction: “to return.”  

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Hmmm

  • “Ordinary Catholics have been…kept in the dark” before. It is now called Good Friday, and its evil confusion and feelings of betrayal were soon dispelled by the light of the Risen Christ on Easter. We “ordinary Catholics” shall always have that gift to weather the most diabolical of storms within God’s holy Church.

  • Amen DonL.

  • It is heartening that Benedict feels this way. It would be devastating if he didn’t.

  • Like everyone here, I too have tried to make sense of this account. I went back to look at some Deutsche.de sites, employing my journeyman German, to check his background, and he has good credentials as a correspondent with die Bild and die Bild am Sonntag. He has previously written about the impending explosion of the sexual abuse problem in Catholic Germany, and from 1995 on, often personally accompanied P JP2 on his airplane on the latter’s travels throughout his pontificate. At first a papal critic, he became an admirer of JP2 and wrote book on him entitled “JP2: The Secret of Karol Wojtyla”, as well as other pro-Catholic works. He is married (to a woman, no less 🙄 ) and has a son.

    But Englisch first came to major attention outside of Germany, predicting some months prior to his abdication that P BXVI was going to resign, the first to hint at the coming crisis.
    So, it sounds like there is more fire to this smoke than originally expected.

    Plus, years in the Holy Office for P BXVI cant be a situation where he appreciates the complete doctrinal undoing of the Catholic Church that the Angry Red from Argentina is doing to the Church.