Skip to content

Vatican

New from RTV: Michael Matt Interviews Father Clovis (London)

 

 

Vatican II & Pope Francis: Fr. Clovis Interviewed by Michael Matt

RTV in LONDON: Michael Matt interviews Father Linus Clovis. The conversation covers the question of refusing Communion to pro-abort politicians, the necessity of the TLM, Pope Francis, and Amoris Laetitia, which Father calls a “Trojan Horse.”

Plus, is Pope Francis an anomaly, or did Vatican II make Francis inevitable?

Subscribe to The Remnant YouTube Channel, as this week we’ll be in France doing RTV work for the Chartres Pilgrimage.

Please Share This Video

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

 

 

Latest from Michael Matt | Editor

 

 

 

 

The Church and Islam: Dangerous Illusions

 

 

When I first began writing about the Church and Islam, I devoted a lot of space to describing ways that Church leaders could resist the spread of Islam. It seemed only a matter of time until they would wake up to the need to resist. As it turned out, however, that assessment was overly optimistic.

The immediate task, as I soon learned, was not to find ways to counter Islam, but to convince the Church’s hierarchy that Islam ought to be resisted. There’s no use talking battle strategies to people who won’t admit that they have an ideological enemy.

The enemy is not Muslims per se, but a belief system adhered to by the majority of Muslims, albeit with varying degrees of commitment. Although Islam does not easily lend itself to moderation, many Muslims manage to practice their faith in peaceful ways. Others merely give it lip service, and still others are on fire with a passionate zeal to spread it—by fire and the sword if necessary.

The idea of opposing dangerous ideologies is not foreign to Americans, but the idea of opposing an ideology that is also a religion is more problematic. It has become increasingly problematic now that we live in an era in which merely disagreeing with another’s opinions is tantamount to a hate crime. So, just for the record, critiquing Islam does not mean that one hates Muslims. Criticizing Islam is not the same as criticizing Muslims, any more than criticizing communism is equivalent to criticizing Soviet-era Russians. One can acknowledge the humanity and good intentions of others without having to endorse their ideology. And if their ideology or belief system presents a grave danger to others, it would be wrong not to criticize it. Of course, one should employ tact and prudence when offering such criticism.

The distinction between Citizen X and his beliefs is a simple one. You do not have to respect his beliefs, but you should try to respect him as a fellow human being. Many Catholic leaders, however, have difficulty making this distinction. Rather than try, they have, in the case of Islam, simply declared it to be an upstanding fellow religion with many similarities to Christianity. That way, no one’s feelings are hurt. The problem of Islamic terrorists and extremists is handled in the same way: they are assumed to be a small minority who have misunderstood the peaceful nature of their religion.

By the same token, it stands to reason that critics of Islam have also misunderstood Islam, and need to be set straight. If they persist in their obstinacy, they are dismissed as bigots and “Islamophobes.” Likewise, Church officials assume that opponents of Muslim immigration must be poorly informed, or else racist and xenophobes. If they loved their neighbor, they would not challenge his beliefs or question his religious practices

Under Pope Benedict XVI there were signs—such as his Regensburg Address—that the Church was developing a more realistic view of Islam. But whatever ground was gained by Benedict was given up by Francis. Indeed, it seems fair to say that under Francis, the Church’s understanding of Islam regressed. Perhaps the most glaring example of this regression can be found in the Pope’s assertion that “authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” It’s hard to imagine any of his predecessors or any of their advisors making a similar claim.

Unfortunately, very few churchmen have taken issue with Francis’s profoundly flawed view of Islam. Instead, many have joined the chorus—some out of naiveté, some out of misplaced sensitivity, and some, perhaps, out of cowardice.

Several decades have passed since the emergence of worldwide Islamic terrorist networks, and Church leaders are still clinging to a fantasy-based view of Islam. In their defense, it must be admitted that other world leaders have also been in thrall to the cult of sensitivity, and have been equally slow in giving up their dreamy narratives. For a long time, Western leaders kept repeating the mantra that Islamic terror had nothing to do with Islam. But now their tune is beginning to change. The Austrian prime minister has threatened to close one of Vienna’s largest mosques, the French have shut down numerous mosques and deported several radical imams, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have effectively closed their borders to Muslim migrants, and Hungary’s prime minister has unapologetically defended the Christian identity of his country.

It’s strange that the Church which, because of its history, ought to be the first to know, appears to be among the last institutions to grasp that Islam is not really a religion of peace.

Or, perhaps, Church leaders do understand the dangers of Islam and have adopted a strategy of silence to protect potential victims of Islam. That’s one plausible defense of their inaction. Perhaps they fear that any criticism of Islam will bring harsh reprisals against Christians living in Muslim lands. During World War II, Catholic leaders quickly learned that denunciations of Nazism brought swift and deadly reprisals against both Jews and Christians. As Nazi power increased, the Vatican developed more covert tactics for helping Jews to escape, and Catholics to resist.

One might argue that today’s Catholic leaders are following a similar strategy in the hopes of mitigating the persecution of Christians and other minorities. But there’s a difference. If the Church simply maintained a prudential silence about Islamic aggressions, that argument might make sense. But Church leaders have not simply refrained from criticizing Islam. Instead, they have taken every opportunity to praise Islam, to declare their solidarity with it, and to join in various Islamic initiatives, such as the campaign against “Islamophobia.” Judging by the Church’s great solicitude for Islam, one would think it was the most persecuted faith on earth, rather than one of the chief persecutors.

The Church’s current Islam policy does not look like the cautious approach of one who is dealing with a dangerous enemy. It looks more like the trusting innocence of one who thinks he has no enemies. Pius XII may have maintained a prudential silence about Nazi evils once it became apparent that many innocent people would pay the price, but he never praised Nazism as a force for peace, and he certainly never declared the Church’s solidarity with it.

By contrast, Church leaders and Pope Francis in particular, have become, in effect, enablers of Islam. Pope Francis has denied that Islam sanctions violence, has drawn a moral equivalence between Islam and Catholicism (“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence”), and has campaigned for the admittance of millions of Muslim migrants into Europe. Moreover, he has criticized those who oppose his open borders policy as hard-hearted xenophobes. In return for his efforts, he has been publicly thanked by several Muslim leaders for his “defense of Islam.”

One might be tempted to use the word “collaborator” instead of “enabler.” But collaborator is too strong a word. In its World War II context, it implies a knowing consent to and cooperation with an evil enterprise. It seems clear to me that the pope and others in the hierarchy are enabling the spread of an evil ideology; however, it’s not at all clear that they understand what they’re doing. Francis, for instance, seems to sincerely believe that all religions are roughly equal in goodness. Thus for him, the spread of any religion must seem like a good thing. It’s an exceedingly naïve view, but one that seems honestly held.

But one can’t plead ignorance forever. Eventually, the reality of the situation will become plain to all but the most obtuse. At that point—at the point the threat is undeniable—we assume that the people in power will wake up and take the appropriate actions. But what if the awakening comes too late? The pope, for one, has shown little evidence that he will change his views on the subject. If anything, he has doubled down—recently going so far as to say that the rights of migrants trump national security. We should not look to the pope to lead the way on this issue. He seems constitutionally incapable of entertaining doubts about his Islam policy. It looks like the impetus to change course will have to come from bishops, priests and Catholic laity. They had better get busy. There is no time to waste.

Originally posted at TurningPointProject.com.

Professor William Kilpatrick, who taught for many years at Boston College, is the author of several books on cultural and religious issues, including Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles on Islam have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, JihadWatch, Crisis, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, and other publications. He is also the founder of Turning Point Project, an initiative dedicated to educating Catholics and other Americans about the threat from Islam.

Syriac Catholic Bishop: “The French Revolution Marginalized God”

 

 

________________________________________

 

 

________________________________________

 

COMMENT:

One of the reasons why Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election is because many Americans instinctively agree with the sentiments expressed here by Bishop Battah, many of which dovetail with Trump’s campaign promises to bring the troops home and stop playing Policeman of the World. Regardless of which mask it hides behind, Neocon nation-building really doesn’t sit well with red-blooded, patriotic Americans.

This is why the war hawks must always conjure up a “bad guy” for us to fear and hate before dragging our country into yet another unjust (and unjustifiable) war.

But what never ceases to amaze me here in this global valley of the shadow of death called the modern world, is that we’re still expected to slog through the sophist revisionism of TV’s talking heads, pony-tailed college professors, Facebook “historians” and the rest– all about how terrible the Catholic Church of the past was, what with her “quintessential” intolerance, trumped-up antisemitism, Crusaders, and all those brutal “wars of religion”.

Just look at that Spanish Inquisition, for example. I mean that alone may have wiped out HUNDREDS of innocent people! Oh, the carnage! The inhumanity!  

Yes, thank goodness those barbaric Ages of Faith are behind us now, so that we can all merrily tiptoe through the tulips and lollipops (and No-Go Zones) of the New World Order.

I realize most moderns haven’t cracked a non-fiction book since high school, but I’m genuinely mystified by how so many can get it so wrong and with such consistency. How, for example, can any moderately literate human being close a blind eye to the string of genocides committed against innocent millions over the past few hundred years by post-Christian nations, while getting all irate over the Crusades some thousand years ago?

How can anyone decry with a straight face comparative nothing-burgers such as the Inquisition and the Crusades just fifty years after the atheist Joseph Stalin wiped out 50,000,000 people from his own thoroughly Christophobic Empire? Where is the wayward Christian king in history whose alleged crimes are even remotely akin to that?

Millions upon millions of corpses have been piled in open graves all over the world since the Enlightenment’s very first act of genocide—ordered in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, mind you—that claimed the lives of half a million French Catholics slaughtered in the Vendee by their own “enlightened” countrymen. Those pioneer “champions of liberty” hadn’t even finished mopping up the blood from their ‘reign of terror’ (which included regicide) before they’d moved south to wipe out men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands with whom they disagreed.

The blood started flowing in Paris, and then it moved down into Brittany and western France, and eventually into the killing fields of Europe manned by Hitler’s Nazis and Stalin’s Communists where the “tree of liberty” still needed to be “refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Finally, even China got into the genocide business at the hands of a supremely anti-Catholic madman called Chairman Mao.

And now all the countries of former Christendom, as well as the New World–once reclaimed from the serpent and dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe by “evil” Catholic explorers–are being overrun by the ancient enemies of Christianity, and there’s no secular power on earth that can stand up to them.

The Enlightenment’s non serviam to Christ the King finally succeeded in plunging the modern world into the chaos of terrorism and unending war, with the anti-Catholic confessional states fixated on developing better war machines and dreaming up horrifically efficient techniques for exterminating millions with the push of a button.  They’re promoting formerly-unthinkable (to the kings and queens of Christendom) concepts such as total war, the bombing of cities, and the chemical extermination of children born and unborn.

Tell me, how is this the Age of Enlightenment while glorious Christendom must always and forever be the Age of Darkness…the so-called Dark Ages?

And now with everybody’s favorite whipping boy, the Catholic Church—architect of Western Civilization—assuming the fetal position beneath the jackboots of Lady Liberty, the sons of the Enlightenment rule the world. Their bombs and their guns “make the world safe for democracy”. Their weapons of mass destruction threaten countries hemispheres away who refuse to adopt Enlightenment values which include abortion on demand, gay ‘marriage’, contraception, ubiquitous porn, crappy fast food and the total annihilation of sovereignty, family and God.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but the Crusaders sacked Constantinople! Sacked it, I tell you…sacked it! 

Well, you know what?  I’ll take my chances with those guys any day.

From the tyranny of an enlightened New World Order,  spare us O Lord!

 

 

 

 

Pope Francis: A Pelagian Lutheran

 

 

Editor’s Note: Another issue of The Remnant brings you yet another diagnosis of what Pope Bergoglio has done this week to undermine the Faith. To readers who may wonder why we ought to continue this exercise we would answer: We have no choice in the matter. The current occupant of the Chair of Peter is mounting a determined assault an every aspect of Catholic teaching and practice he finds disagreeable, including the teaching of his own immediate predecessors on fundamental moral questions. In short, we have a Pope who is literally attacking the Church.

It would be a dereliction of duty not to express our continuing opposition to the radically Modernist program of “a dictator Pope” Catholics the world over now recognize “is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches,” a veritable “lost shepherd” who “is misleading his flock.” To ignore Pope Bergoglio when one is in a position to offer any form of effective opposition, even if it be only a salutary warning about his errors, is to ignore the common good of the Church in favor of personal tranquility. This we cannot do.

Even from a purely journalistic perspective, to ignore the story of the rise of Bergoglianism would be even more absurd than ignoring the story of World II while it was in progress. And the spiritual consequences of what Sister Lucia of Fatima called “the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan,” now plainly underway, are infinitely weightier than the consequences of merely earthly warfare.

And so our coverage of this continuing disaster must continue. Until it is over.  MJM

Pope Francis, Pelagian Lutheran

Pope Bergoglio has spent the past five years condemning neo-Pelagianism, which he falsely describes in Evangelii Gaudium (EG) as “observ[ing] certain rules or remain[ing] intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” or, in Gaudete et Exsultate, as “a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige.” In other words, to the Modernist mind of Bergoglio, a strong attachment to Catholic doctrine and liturgy—indeed, a strong attachment to Catholicism as such—is Pelagianism.

Like so much of what Bergoglio says in matters theological, this is the opposite of the truth. The Pelagian, unlike the orthodox Catholic, denies the existence of original sin and holds that human effort alone (assisted by whatever divine grace is inherent in created nature) is capable of attaining final beatitude. The “quintessence of Pelagianism,” as the Catholic Encyclopedia observes, can be summarized in these propositions:

1) Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.

2) Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.

3) Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.

4) The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.

5) The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.

6) Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

Considering these marks of Pelagianism, it should be obvious that it is actually Pope Bergoglio who has a Pelagian view of salvation and that, like so many of the accusations he hurls at others, this one applies first and foremost to him. The proofs of this have been abundant over the past five years of his pronouncements to the effect that being Catholic and having the grace of the sacraments makes no crucial difference for salvation because all “good people,” even atheists,  are saved no matter what they believe.

Three recent examples, however, suffice to reinforce the point.

First, in Gaudium et Exsultate, we read the following remarkable propositions, for which the only cited authority in 2,000 years of Church history is Bergoglio’s own opinions:

Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God’s grace, “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style [from the past].” [citing EG]. When some of them tell the weak that all things can be accomplished with God’s grace, deep down they tend to give the idea that all things are possible by the human will, as if it were something pure, perfect, all-powerful, to which grace is then added. They fail to realize that “not everyone can do everything”, and that in this life human weaknesses are not healed completely and once for all by grace….

Grace, precisely because it builds on nature, does not make us superhuman all at once.… Unless we can acknowledge our concrete and limited situation, we will not be able to see the real and possible steps that the Lord demands of us at every moment, once we are attracted and empowered by his gift. Grace acts in history; ordinarily it takes hold of us and transforms us progressively.

Aside from his usual caricature of Catholic teaching—here reduced to the straw man that grace does not instantly make men into supermen—the cited passages are embedded with Pelagian thinking about the role of grace in the moral life. In order to explain this, I must first “unpack” Bergoglio’s treatment of moral weakness.  As we will see, what at first blush would appear to be an argument for the inadequacy of the human will alone to sustain moral virtue without grace, contra Pelagius, turns out to be, upon close examination, quite the opposite, although Bergoglio, given the incoherency of his theology, does not seem to realize that his views actually favor Pelagianism.

First of all, by “the weak” Bergoglio means those who habitually commit sins of the flesh, which his entire pontificate has been an exercise in accommodating, particularly in the case of the divorced and “remarried” and others living in what he calls “irregular situations.” In fact, the very title of the infamous Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia is “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness.” To quote Bergoglio in his book-length interview Politique et Société (pp. 249-250)(translation mine):

The lightest sins are the sins of the flesh. The sins of the flesh are not necessarily the most serious. Because the flesh is weak. The most dangerous sins are those of the spirit. I spoke of angelism: pride, vanity are sins of angelism. I understood your question. The Church is the Church. Priests have had the temptation—not all, but many—to focus on the sins of sexuality. This is what I have already spoken to you about: what I call morality under the belt. The most serious sins are elsewhere.

[Les péchés les plus légers sont les péchés de la chair. Les péchés de la chair ne sont pas forcément les plus graves. Parce que la chair est faible. Les péchés les plus dangereux sont ceux de l’esprit. J’ai parlé d’angélisme : l’orgueil, la vanité sont des péchés d’angélisme. J’ai compris votre question. L’Église est l’Église. Les prêtres ont eu la tentation – pas tous, mais beaucoup – de se focaliser sur les péchés de la sexualité. C’est ce dont je vous ai déjà parlé : ce que j’appelle la morale sous la ceinture. Les péchés les plus graves sont ailleurs.]

Concerning what he views as “light” sins of flesh, Bergoglio fails to mention that habitual sins of  impurity darken the intellect, harden the heart, bury the voice of conscience, and lead ultimately to a loss of faith unless there is an amendment of life.

Further, mangling yet another theological concept to suit his rhetorical needs, Bergoglio equates angelism, which denies or minimizes concupiscence as if men were angels, with pride and vanity (apparently confusing the pride of the Devil and his angels with angelism as a theological error). He thereby excises from the true meaning of angelism the role of concupiscence, and thus Original Sin, in lust and sins of the flesh, which he deems “the lightest sins.” Blessed Jacinta of Fatima, directly informed by the Mother of God, begs to differ with Bergoglio of Buenos Aires: “More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.… Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much. Woe to women lacking in modesty.”

With these two points in view, we can see how the indulgence of “weakness” in Bergoglian theology actually favors a Pelagian view of morality. For if “the weak,” even with the assistance of God’s grace, cannot be expected to  refrain from adultery and fornication , whereas “the strong,” also assisted by grace, are able to avoid these sins—as do so many of the faithful and, for that matter, even many non-Catholics —then what Bergoglio is really saying is that it is not grace but the particular strength of the individual human will that is the decisive factor in avoiding sins of the flesh. That is at least a semi-Pelagian view of human nature, minimizing the role of grace and exaggerating the role of the unassisted will while removing Original Sin from the picture along with the action of divine grace in overcoming post-baptismal concupiscence.

 

Bringing utter disgrace on the Petrine office, Bergoglio holds “weak” Catholics, who have access to the grace of the Sacraments, to a lower standard of sexual morality than that exhibited by evangelical Protestants who are serious about following the Gospel as they understand it and who implore God’s grace as best they can without the helps of the Church, knowing that they will fall without it. For Bergoglio, absurdly enough, to whom much is given less is expected in terms of  sexual morality.

Second, in a clearly Pelagian manner, Bergoglio apparently denies the role of Baptism in translating fallen human nature, debilitated by Original Sin, into the state of sanctifying grace by which we are made children of God. He evidently believes that all men are already “children of God,” no matter what they believe or what they do, and that Baptism merely enhances the preexisting divine kinship in some vague manner. That is exactly what he has just told a group of impressionable children at a Roman parish during one of those events in which he uses staged questions posed by children to propagate Bergoglian theology, and then demands that the children express assent to his errors in the manner of a pep rally:

Carlotta: Hi Pope Francis! When we receive baptism, we become children of God. And people who are not baptized are not God’s children?

Pope Francis: Stay there. What’s your name?

Carlotta: Carlotta.

Pope Francis: Carlotta. Tell me Carlotta, asking back to you: what do you think? Are people who are not baptized, daughters of God or not daughters of God? What does your heart tell you?

Carolotta: Yes.

Pope Francis: Yes. Here, now she explains. She responded well, she has a Christian flair, this one! We are all children of God. Everyone, everyone. Even the unbaptized? Yes. Even those who believe in other religions, far away, who have idols? Yes, they are children of God. Are the mafia too God’s children? … You are not sure … Yes, even the mafiosi are children of God. They prefer to behave like children of the devil, but they are children of God. All, all are children of God, everyone.

But what is the difference [with Baptism]? God created everyone, loved everyone and put conscience in the heart to recognize good and distinguish it from evil. All men have this. They know, they perceive what is good and what is healthy; even people who do not know Jesus, who do not know Christianity, all have this in the soul, because this has been sown by God. But when you were baptized, in that conscience the Holy Spirit entered and strengthened your belonging to God and in that sense you have become more a daughter of God, because you are daughter of God like everyone, but also with the power of the Holy Spirit that has entered inside.

Pope Francis: Did you understand, Carlotta? I ask, everyone answer: All men are children of God?

Children: Yes!

Pope Francis: Good people, are daughters of God?

Children: Yes!

Pope Francis: Bad people, are daughters of God?

Children: Yes!

Pope Francis: Yes. Do people who do not know Jesus and have other distant religions, have idols, are daughters of God?

Children: Yes!

Pity the children who were cajoled into expressing their assent to this heretical nonsense. If all men, without exception, are children of God, then no one is under the dominion of Satan on account of Original Sin in which case the Redemption would be pointless. Nor can Bergoglio be defended on the ground that he was using the phrase “children of God” equivocally to mean “created by God” and that he was not denying the Church’s infallible teaching that Baptism confers the gift of divine adoption. On the contrary, he explicitly declares that all men are already adopted children of God and that Baptism merely makes one “more a daughter of God… but also with the power of the Holy Spirit”—whatever that means.

The notion that Baptism, in some vague way, makes one “more” a child of God than the other “children of God,” meaning all of humanity, is an absurd theological invention peculiar to Bergoglianism. What is more, Bergoglio neglected to instruct the children on the Catholic doctrine that Baptism and the state of sanctifying grace involve more than some vague “power of the Holy Spirit,” but rather the indwelling of the Holy Trinity and the consequent divinizing of the baptized (unless they subsequently fall into mortal sin), which is anything but a universal state among men. As the late, great Father John Hardon explains:

The Church commonly teaches distinguishing between God’s presence and his indwelling. The indwelling, unlike the omnipresence, is not natural but super – beyond natural. The indwelling is not universal but particular, very particular. The indwelling is not merely the presence of God in the world but it is the special way in which the Holy Trinity dwells in the souls of those who are in sanctifying grace. We see immediately how selective the indwelling is in contrast with the omnipresence….

How does the Church explain this indwelling? The Church tells us that the indwelling is unique; it exists only in the souls of believers who are in the friendship of God. This indwelling, we are told, comes to us through baptism…. That in the final analysis is what makes a person holy, why a child, just baptized and having received at baptism the divine indwelling, is holy….

The divine indwelling may be described as a special intimacy of God with the soul, producing an extraordinary knowledge and love of God. Only those who possess the divine indwelling are able to know God as God wants to be known; are able to love God as God wants to be loved.

Nowhere in the Bergoglian explanation of the effects of Baptism is there any indication that it remits Original Sin, infuses the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity, makes the soul fit for the indwelling of Trinity, and is thereby the gateway to salvation. With Pelagius himself, Bergoglio would appear to deny that Baptism translates the soul from its fallen state into the state of divine adoption by which, if one “perseveres until the end (Matt 24:13)”, one is saved. Not for Bergoglio, apparently, is the teaching of Christ, whose Vicar he is supposed to be: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned…. Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

It is reasonable to wonder whether Bergoglio even believes in the dogma of Original Sin or the Church’s infallible teaching on the nature and effects of Baptism. It does not seem so—at least not in the Catholic sense. But even if he does believe in what the Church teaches, he failed utterly in his duty to instruct those impressionable children about the divine privilege conferred upon the recipients of Baptism and only upon them as adopted children of God.

Third, leaving no doubt of his position, Bergoglio employed another child on the same occasion in order to make the point that Baptism is not necessary for the salvation of “good people,” even atheists. When a lad of six or seven named Emanuele was brought up to the microphone to pose his staged question, he was so frightened he could not speak, whereupon Francis vulgarly prompted him to play his part: “Dai! Dai! Dai! Dai!” (come on! come on! come on! come on!), to which little Emanuele replied: “I can’t do it” (Non ce lo faccio!). Then the poor child, commanded by Bergoglio to come up and whisper in his ear, was practically dragged up to the papal chair where, now crying, he was induced to hug the Pope like a department store Santa Claus. We are expected to believe that this six- or seven-year-old then engaged in the following discussion with Bergoglio, all while whispering in his ear, which Bergoglio recounted immediately afterward:

Maybe all of us, we could cry like Emanuele when we have a pain as he has in his heart. He cried for his father and had the courage to do it in front of us, because in his heart there is love for his father. [As the video shows, he was crying because he was mortified and terrified.]

I asked Emanuele permission to say the question in public and he said yes. This is why I will tell you [i.e., Bergoglio extracted “permission” from a traumatized child to reveal his embarrassing secret to the whole world]:

“A short time ago my father died. He was an atheist, but he had all four children baptized. He was a good man. Is Daddy in heaven?”

How nice that a son says of his dad: “He was good.” Beautiful testimony that man gave his children, because his children will be able to say: “He was a good man.”

It is a beautiful testimony of the son who inherited the strength of his father and, also, had the courage to cry in front of us all [in fact, they had reduced the child to tears by traumatizing him]. If that man was able to make children like that, it’s true, he was a good man. He was a good man.

That man did not have the gift of faith, he was not a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart. And he [Emanuele] has doubt that his father, who was not a believer, is in Heaven.

Next came Bergoglio’s demand for the children’s assent to his error:

Who says who goes to Heaven is God. But how is the heart of God before a father like that? How is it? How does it look to you? … The heart of Daddy! God has a father’s heart. And before a non-believing father, who was able to baptize his children and do that great thing [bravura] for his children, do you think that God would be able to leave him far away from Himself?

Do you think this? … [soliciting answer from the children, but only eliciting a faint “no” from some] Strong, with courage!

Everyone: No!

Pope Francis: Does God abandon his children?

Everyone: No!

Pope Francis: Does God abandon his children who are good?

Everyone: No!

Pope Francis: Here, Emanuele, this is the answer. God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer, to baptize children, than to baptize them as unbelievers. Surely this is so pleasing to God. Talk to your dad [pointing upward to heaven], pray to your dad. Thanks Emanuele for your courage.

Watch the encounter below:

 

 

The notion that atheists who are “good people” can attain salvation without faith, baptism and the life of the Trinity within implicitly denies the necessity of supernatural virtue, not merely natural virtue, for salvation. Thus Our Lord Himself admonished those who called Him good in the natural sense: “And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18) In fact, the hypothetical virtuous atheist is the rhetorical device by which the subversive polemic of Enlightenment propagandists attacked revealed religion in general and the necessity of the Catholic faith in particular. What need is there for the Catholic religion if one can be a “good person” and society can maintain a certain moral standard without it?  Bergoglio seems completely won over by this classic deception of modernity, which amounts to a practical elimination of the supernatural order.

It would have been one thing had Bergoglio told Emanuele he could have hope for his father, despite his apparent lack of faith, because God reads every heart and no one but He can know the final disposition of a soul, which is able to convert even at the moment of death in response to God’s grace. But it was quite another to use the boy as a prop for the promotion of Bergoglio’s notion of the universal salvation of all “good people” even if, as was the case with Emanuele’s father, they “did not have the gift of faith” but were “good people” (as Bergoglio simply presumes, as if he could read a stranger’s soul for a little boy who lost his father).

Also conspicuously absent from Bergoglio’s advice to the boy was even a hint that Purgatory might be involved in the eternal destiny of the boy’s father or indeed anyone else who has passed from this world into the next. I cannot think of single reference to the Catholic dogma on Purgatory in the many utterances of this Pope on the matter of salvation. It would seem that, for Francis, even atheists who are “good people” enter directly into beatitude—to adore a God in whom they never believed!

So much for the contrary teaching of the Church, reaffirmed so forcefully by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.  Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”

All in all, Bergoglio is a kind of hyper-Pelagian. For even Pelagius affirmed that Baptism confers divine adoption and thus is necessary for salvation and the remission of personal sins, although  he denied Original Sin. In refuting the errors of the Pelagians, Saint Augustine noted that they “do not deny that in that laver of regeneration they [the baptized] are adopted from the sons of men unto the sons of God,” although they had no sensible explanation of why the baptismal ceremony should confer the privilege of divine adoption if it did not remit  Original Sin, produce the state of sanctifying grace, infuse the supernatural virtues, and make possible the indwelling of the Trinity.

Moreover, even as to infants, the Pelagians allowed that Baptism was necessary for entrance into the eternal “Kingdom of God” upon death, but not for “eternal life” as such (i.e., without the pains of Hell). To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: “As to infant baptism he [Pelagius] granted that it ought to be administered in the same form as in the case of adults, not in order to cleanse the children from a real original guilt, but to secure to them entrance into the ‘kingdom of God.’ Unbaptized children, he thought, would after their death be excluded from the ‘kingdom of God,’ but not from ‘eternal life.’”

Indeed, Pelagius essentially adapted for his system (such as it was) something like the Catholic doctrine on Limbo, which the heretical Synod of Pistoia later wrongly condemned as a “Pelagian fable” even though it was the common teaching of theologians. As Father Brian Harrison has noted on these pages, Pope Pius VI, reprobating the errors of the Synod, “rejected this Jansenist view of Limbo as a mere ‘Pelagian fable’ branding [that rejection] as ‘false, rash, and injurious to Catholic schools.’” Limbo, writes Father Harrison, “was traditional Catholic doctrine not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely ‘authentic.’”

Bergoglio, however, not only dispenses with Limbo (according to the novel thinking of the past fifty years) but also, going beyond even Pelagius, declares that all good people go to heaven with or without Baptism or the other Sacraments. He thus flirts with the anathema of the Council of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification—though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual—let him be anathema.

Worse, Bergoglio goes beyond both Pelagius and Luther in declaring that even without faith “good people,” including atheists, can be saved just because they are “good people.” Here we see that Bergoglio manages to incorporate both Pelagian and Lutheran elements into his own peculiar theological blend.

As to Luther, in an exercise of his Airplane Magisterium Bergoglio has infamously declared that “today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he [Luther] did not err.” So, according to Bergoglio, Luther was correct in holding that a Christian is justified by faith alone. But, according to the same Bergoglio, the non-Christian, including the atheist, is justified by being a “good person” with “a good heart” even if, as he said of Emanuele’s deceased father, “that man did not have the gift of faith, he was not a believer.” Thus we have in Bergoglio the incredible spectacle of Pelagian-Lutheran thought, depending upon which audience he is addressing at the moment.

Then again—who knows?—next week Bergoglio may utter something consistent with the doctrine and dogma he negated during his parish visit. But, whatever Bergoglio’s subjective intentions may be, his disordered and self-contradictory teaching exhibits precisely what St. Vincent de Paul condemned respecting Calvin and other innovators (courtesy of Antonio Socci, translation mine):

Calvin, who twenty times denied that God is author of sin, elsewhere made every effort to demonstrate this detestable maxim. All innovators act in the same way: in their books they plant contradictions, so that, when attacked on one point, they have an escape ready, stating that elsewhere they have sustained the contrary.

In sum, according to the theology of Bergoglianism: (1) the effects of Original Sin are of no account; (2) Baptism does not remit Original Sin and deliver a soul from the dominion of Satan into the state of divine adoption, but merely enhances an already existing universal divine adoption for anyone who happens to be baptized; (3) faith alone justifies the Christian, without need of the Church and her sacraments, but (4) being a “good person” suffices for the salvation of non-Christians and even atheists. In which case, what need does anyone, believer or non-believer, have for Pope Bergoglio or the religion he presents as authentic Catholicism?

As was noted at the outset of this piece, we cannot refrain from documenting the course of this disastrous papacy, unlike any in the entire history of the Church, including the pontificates of Paul VI and John II. Nor can we ignore the obvious conclusion after five years of this insanity: that the Chair of Peter is currently occupied by a promoter of manifold heresy who has no respect for any teaching of the Church that contradicts his idiosyncratic mélange of populist piety and half-baked Modernism.

God alone, or perhaps a future Pope or Council, may someday judge whether Bergoglio fell from office on account of heresy or whether his election was valid in the first place. Meanwhile, we are left to cope with the ruinous effects of this pontificate while praying for its merciful termination, failing the conversion of a Pope who has become the eye of a neo-Modernist hurricane now bearing down on the household of the Faith.

This article appears in the next Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Subscribe today to get access to the rest!

Avatar

PLEASE PIN THIS:

Another revealing example of Bergoglio’s treatment of young people: the famous mocking of the altar boy, whom he cavalierly lays his hands on to make his “humble” point:

If I were his father I would have said: “What gives you the right to put your hands on my son and humiliate him before the whole world? He is not a prop for you to demonstrate your so-called humility.”

Francis is Using the Communists, Not the Other Way Around

 

 

children and washing the feet of the faithful, and much less about issuing encyclicals and wading into the debate arena with the secularist academics.

But as time went on, a pattern emerged. Francis was not the smiling dunce that he appeared to be. He was, and remains, a coldly calculating man, who uses his so-called “slips of the tongue” to befuddle the conservative opposition within the Vatican and undermine any attempt to rein him in. Francis is no fool. He is Machiavellian, and he has been running circles around us for five years.

And who is this “dictator pope,” what does he want? It should be clear by now that Bergoglio is an arch Modernist, that is to say, a heresiarch who seems to hold no Catholic dogma sacred. To Francis, everything is fair game. He upends everything, glibly remarking that “time is bigger than space”. (Translation: I will make the mess, but somebody else will have to clean it up.) But Francis is not a bull in a china shop; he is a sniper with a powerful scope. One by one, he is picking off his targets. Traditional marriage, blasted away with a tiny footnote in a poorly-written document. Unmistakable teaching against sodomy, laid low by five little words uttered seemingly absent-mindedly on an airplane. The Council of Trent, murdered by a postage stamp. Even Hell, it now seems, has been shot out of the dogmatic picture. The list goes on and on and on. Francis is not a buffoon pottering about breaking things in the chapel. He is systematically destroying whatever is left of the Church that Christ founded. He is, in a word, Modernism exemplified.

 

This article appears in the last Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Subscribe today to see all you’re missing!

 

Of all Bergoglio’s outrages against the Magisterium, none so neatly illustrates his plan to end Catholicism as his ongoing, slow-motion pas de deux with the Chinese Communist Party. How can Pope Francis be so naïve? we read time and again. Doesn’t he know what the Communists are capable of? Doesn’t he remember Cardinal Mindszenty, Fr. Walter Ciszek, Patriarch Tikhon, the Spanish Civil War, Vietnam? Of course he does. The deal being hammered out between Beijing and the Vatican is not a foolhardy attempt by an open-handed pontiff to save the Church in China—it is a move to end it.

It is not hyperbole to say that, even including the early Christians, few have suffered for the Faith as have the faithful in China. My sources inside the People’s Republic tell me of disappeared bishops, arrested parishioners, confiscated church buildings, houndings by the police, surveillance, intimidation, and character assassination. But one hardly needs to resort to espionage to know what the Chinese government does to Catholics, or to anyone who dissents from the party line. Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese lawyer who was forced into exile for trying to get the Chinese government to stop performing brutal ninth-month forced abortions on women who had violated the “one-child policy,” says from his new home in the United States that Francis should never sign the deal that is on the table. Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun, the Hero of Hong Kong who has repeatedly taken to the public square to defy Beijing’s designs on one of the last outposts of relative freedom in continental Asia, has urged Francis to stop negotiating with the Communist authorities. Websites in the US and Europe are now thronged with articles and essays pleading with the Vatican to fight against Beijing, and not to capitulate to it. Steven Mosher, the China expert who runs the pro-life Population Research Institute, has been saying for decades that China is the worst offender against the Catholic Faith, and against basic human dignity, on the planet.

But things look different to Bergoglio. He has no use for such sound council. What is precisely galling about the Chinese Catholics is that they are Catholic. The Catholics who stayed with the legitimate, underground Church—and did not go over to the sham church with “clergy” appointed by the Communist Party—have kept the Faith. They are true believers. They frequently meet martyrdom for their fidelity. Francis wants to cut this out root and branch.

What does he want instead? What do all Modernists want? Francis wants to put a stop to revealed religion and make the Church an adjunct to the state. He is a garden-variety globalist who thinks One World Government will finally solve the problems of mankind. (Globalist Extraordinaire and high priest of the abortion lobby Jeffrey Sachs has been Francis’ frequent guest at the Vatican, often headlining events with the Holy Father and even hosting them from time to time.) When Francis’ lieutenant, Vatican bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, said that China was “best implementing the social doctrine of the Church,” he wasn’t kidding. And he wasn’t alone. Francis—who said nothing in public to rebuke or even to contradict Sorondo—agrees with him completely.

 

The above picture was taken recently at a sham-Catholic, “official, government-approved” church in Nanjing. The sign in front of the church touts the patriotic activities going on there, including building “core socialist values” and inculcating “patriotism”. There is no mention of Jesus or the sacraments, but the stone pillar at the bottom center is a bangmu, in this case the huabiao totem standing in front of the Gate of Heavenly Peace in Beijing. (The same Gate of Heavenly Peace where the “People’s Liberation Army” opened fire with machine guns and tanks into a crowd of unarmed civilians in 1989.)

It represents the power of the emperor, traditionally known in China as the “son of heaven,” and, by extension, the power of the state. The symbolism is perverse and entirely intentional. The Cross of Christ, where hopes of a political messiah (should have) died forever, is replaced with a cross-like totem to apotheosized statecraft. Just as Francis has turned the Vatican into an adjunct of the radically anti-human environmentalist fringe movement, and has reliably weighed in on the Marxist side of every political debate he enters, he wants to expand the Church-as-handmaiden-to-world-socialism franchise into China, which openly carries on that Leninist tradition in the twenty-first century.

This time, the deal comes with direct insults and blasphemies against Our Lord. Socialist trampling of religion, but with Chinese characteristics.

Just twenty years ago, it seemed that Communism was finally gasping its last. Now, a dozen winters after the death of the pope who dedicated his pontificate to fighting murderous collectivism, his successor once removed is prepared to give it his blessing.

See Cardinal Joseph Zen COMMENT on this situation

Jason Morgan (PhD, Japanese history) teaches history, politics, philosophy, and language at Reitaku University in Chiba, Japan. He studied Chinese language and history at the University of Hawaii, the University of Wisconsin, and Yunnan University in Kunming, PRC.

  • Avatar

    Outstanding article! I would suggest just one little change, in the headline. Francis is not “using” the Communists. Francis is a Communist. The author already said as much himself: “He is a garden-variety globalist who thinks One World Government will finally solve the problems of mankind.”

  • Avatar

    The Catholic Church is in a state of emergency. The pope is out of control, yet few bishops speak up, much less act.

  • Avatar

    “Francis wants to put a stop to revealed religion and make the Church an adjunct to the state. He is a garden-variety globalist who thinks One World Government will finally solve the problems of mankind.” Mr. Morgan, I think you have correctly identified the essence of who Francis is and what motivates him.

  • Avatar

    He wants to make Catholicism into Protestantism.

  • Avatar

    This pontiff is selling out Catholics around the globe.

  • Avatar

    I think your giving the man too much credit. I don’t think He’s smart enough to tie His own shoe, much less be leading the charge to destroy the faith. We already know He doesn’t write His “own” encyclicals so who the master wizards are behind the curtain are, that’s up for debate. But I’m sure He has a team working round the clock writing and implementing the nonsense that’s running through is head at any given moment.

  • Avatar

    Will there ever be enough evidence against Bergoglio for the collage of cardinals to remove him for his heresies and apostasy? What does he have to do for them to take off their blinder and SEE just what he IS doing?

  • Avatar

    The Cardinals are perfectly aware of what is happening. Many are quite happy with developments. Others are like deer in the headlights, frozen in place. Some probably don’t care.

 

Pope Dissolves Another Thriving Order of Priests

 

 

GloriaTV explains further: But in a time of mass-immigration, De Kesel claimed that the group needed to be dissolved because “too many” of them were French while in the national seminary in Namur out of 80 seminarians only 25 are from Belgium.

On April 12 Marco Tosatti, writing on LaNuovaBQ.it, broke the news that an appeal in front of the Apostolic Signature by laypeople against the killing of the community has been stopped by Pope Francis because the judges were in favour of accepting it.

Remember the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate? Rich in vocations both in Europe and in Africa, inspired by St. Maximilian Kolbe and approved by John Paul II. But five years ago it was put under the authority of a Vatican commissioner, and one year ago it was dissolved by Pope Francis.

There is the similar case of the Family of the Incarnate Word. This religious order, begun in Argentina in the 1980s, has more than one thousand members in twenty-six countries on five continents, including in regions where nobody else is willing to go. The Family has roughly 800 seminarians. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, then archbishop of Buenos Aires and president of the Argentine bishops’ conference, did not care for the Family. He made reference to it, while addressing the bishops: “In Latin America we happen to find in small groups, and in some of the new religious orders, an exaggerated drift to doctrinal or disciplinary security.” At one time, he blocked the ordination of the Family’s priests for three years. The founder, again, is more or less segregated from his order.

COMMENT: We’re well aware of the fact that there are often “two sides to the story” when it comes to cases such as these. We do not pretend to have “inside dope” on this one, and I would imagine the various factions have differing accounts of what this is all about.

We do, however, see a pattern here. The Pope, who promotes the likes of Father James Martin and even runs cover for predators such as Chilean Bishop Juan Barros, can be relied upon to spring into action against priests with an orthodox or traditionalist bent.

Cardinal Burke and his allies have been waiting since September of 2016 for Pope Francis to answer their urgent request for clarification of Amoris Laetitia. But like the wartime refugees waiting for the plane to Lisbon in the old movie, Casablanca, they wait and wait and wait…

Pope’s a busy man, I get it… but evidently not too busy to act with lightning speed on behalf of the Brussels’ cardinal who had a Church of Accompaniment crisis on his hands—entirely too many vocations in a Tradition-leaning order of priests.

Then there’s the Society of Saint Pius X which feels confident that the “friendship” of the Argentinian pope—whose apparent goal is to rid the entire Church of Faith and Tradition—will somehow shield them from the proactive modus operandi of the Bergoglian steamroller.

Let’s pray that God will somehow provide an invisible cloak or something similar for our friends in the SSPX, should they ever come under the fatherly benevolence of Pope Francis the Great.

  • Avatar

    The SSPX are already “under the fatherly benevolence of Pope Francis.” Their Masses have always fulfilled a Sunday or Holy Day obligation and they have always mentioned the Pope in the Canon. More recently excommunications against their Bishops have been declared null and void, they have formal jurisdiction for Confessions and have been provided an avenue for Marriages too. Any suggestions that the SSPX are “outside the Church” or “schismatic” needs to be opposed.

  • Avatar

    { Tosatti calls this an “ugly story” that certainly does not cast a good light on Pope Francis. }
    I can think of nothing that does cast a good light on Bergoglio.

  • Avatar

    Francis is dissolving the Catholic Church and all its Traditions. He is an Anti-Pope and a Heretic. He must be disposed and quickly. He is not a CATHOLIC!!.. Cardinal Burke HURRY!!

  • Avatar

    As quote above;”Pope Francis definitively dissolved the Fraternity for being hated by the anti-Catholic Cardinal of Brussels, Jozef De Kesel.; Unquote.
    If Francis sides with anti-Catholics then can someone kindly tell us just what that makes him!?!?!

  • Avatar

    Ah, anti-Catholic?

  • Avatar

    There’s an interesting pattern at work in this campaign against religious orders and societies: They all seem to orbit in what we might call the conservative, Novus Ordo, spectrum of the Church. Liberalized orders, as you say, remain untouched; but also unscathed (so far) are the Ecclesia Dei orders, too. Consider:

    * Fraternity of the Holy Apostles (Belgium) – ROTR Novus Ordo Masses, known for wearing cassocks
    * Immaculate Word (Argentina) – missionary (N.O.) priests and religious brothers of either apostolic or contemplative life, conservative in morals, mainstream in liturgy
    * Dioceses of Ciudad del Este, Albenga-Imperia, and Kansas City – diocesan bishops known for more traditional formation with many vocations, all removed on various pretenses
    * Franciscans of the Immaculate – Franciscan orders, men and women’s, which had begun as conservative, Wojtylian communities under Congregation for Religious, but which had shown growing signs of attachment to traditional (“crypto-Lefebvrian”) liturgy, practices
    * Heralds of the Gospel – Eclectic, traditional leaning (O.F.) South American Association of Pontifical Right with explosive growth

    To this, we could add the repeated slapdowns of Cardinal Sarah in his various calls for more traditional practices in the Ordinary Form, and the new instruction on translations for the O.F., giving more discretion to local conferences in preparing translations.

    In some cases, scrutiny seems warranted to some degree – the Immaculate Word in particular stands out – and one thinks of the ominous precedent of the Legion of Christ, which so famously adopted traditional practices and airs and enjoyed explosive growth as a result but in fact proved to be dangerously cult-like, made toxic by a depraved founder. That said, none of these newer orders seems to be in the Legion’s realm, so far. The bishops of the three dioceses in question seem to have been a little sloppy in vocations screening, or in following proper procedures in handling abuse allegations (though if Robert Finn deserved removal for his offenses in the Ratigan case, one shudders to think what punishment Roger Mahoney, Godfried Daneels, and Rembert Weakland merit), and modest failures provided the excuse for pontifical obliteration. In other cases (the FFI and FHA), concerns seem meritless, and are pretty obviously motivated by theological animus.

    And yet, the Ecclesia Dei orders remain untouched so far. In fact, if anything, they’ve done pretty well over the last five years. Bishops not known for love of tradition (why, just last week, Chaput) have been inviting them in to erect apostolates; there’s even an indult now for the pre-1955 Holy Week, something unthinkable under Benedict or John Paul II. And as we all know, this papal benignity has even trickled down to the Society. Why is this? God knows there’s no love for these groups in SpadaroLand.

    Many peeps here assume the biggest trap is waiting to be sprung on them (and the SSPX). And at some point, that may indeed happen. But I think what is happening is a combination of two things: 1) Ecclesia Dei orders are not only canonically protected in their practice of tradition in a way other orders and communities (like the poor FFI) are not, they also tend to be much more vigilant in keeping their noses clean, not least because they know they can’t give the hierarchy any excuse to squash them; 2) groups and societies and prelates that function in the Novus Ordo are perceived as more of an immediate threat, because they can more easily affect how Catholics worship, live, and believe in a rite that governs 98%+ of Latin Rite Catholics. Trads, on the other hand, can be more readily tolerated (and sealed up) in their ghettos (the Diocese of Rockford over the past two years is a perfect case in point). It also does not hurt that the Ecclesia Dei groups have generally kept their heads down publicly in current controversies, as some who follow the Society like to remind us from time to time; but I think it’s also true that they know well that traditionalists would fight back like wildcats in a way these conservative groups have not. That’s a fight they may not be eager to take on just yet.

    None of this is meant to suggest that vigilance by traditionalists is not warranted. It is! But it’s quite interesting to see what the pattern of oppressive acts seems to say about what this pontificate views as most threatening to it – and most easily crushed – right now.

  • Avatar

    Interesting analysis. Thank you. But, then again, there are some longtime Vatican watchers who believe all of this is about the big prize—first gaining control of and then suppressing the single largest organization of priestly opposition to the revolution of Vatican II in the world: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X. He changed history. He is now and always was the arch nemesis of the Modernist Vatican. The seduction or expulsion (the Vatican didn’t care which) of his SSPX is what Summorum Pontificum was all about, they argue; this is what the Indult was all about, this is what Ecclesia Dei was all about. If these turn out to have been more than mere wild conspiracy theories, then it stands to reason that any Vatican strong-arming the FSSP would be the kiss of death to their main agenda: Controlling the opposition. After all, the main argument in favor of a Vatican/SSPX rapprochement is this: “Look at the FSSP! They’re doing fine. They’re growing, many vocations, parishes springing up all over the place. Why not the SSPX?” If this theory turns out to be based in reality, then traditional Catholics should prepare to say au revoir to the FSSP just as soon as the Vatican says bienvenue to the SSPX. Everybody loses…except the Vatican.

  • Avatar

    It’s almost getting to be like the time of the persecution in Ireland, when people were told the location of secret places to gather where mass would be celebrated. The good thing is that with the internet, it may be easy for stay in touch, communicate and share books and pdf missals. Even 3d-print statues. Back then we had to stay out of the way of the police, now we’re wise to stay quiet and out of the way of the official church.

  • Avatar

    Brussels is close to 40% Muslim and within a decade or so will be majority Muslim. Ironically, it is the seat of the EU. Once Muslims comprise 50% plus of the city’s population things will get interesting as their stance on family issues (gay and LGBT rights) is in sharp contrast to that of the EU.
    What can be done? The Western bishops have thrown in the towel so nothing will come from them. Could groups such as this change their affiliation within the Catholic Church from the Roman Rite to one of the Eastern Rites? That would protect them from Vatican/Roman/Francis interference. As the Catholic Church closes parishes throughout Europe, the Orthodox church is opening them. I assume there is a small but growing Eastern Rite presence in Europe and maybe in that lies a solution.

  • Avatar

    Sorry, but I don’t think that some groups’ affiliating with eastern Catholic rites, if that is even possible, would protect them from Vatican/Roman/Francis interference. The eastern rites are also under the thumb of the Vatican. For example, whether Roman rite Catholics like it or not, eastern Christians have always ordained some married men to the priesthood. Yes, there have always been married true Catholic priests. However, when eastern Catholics migrated to North America and eastern rite bishops sent married priests to minister to them according to their own traditions, one of the popes (I forget which) imposed mandatory celibacy on eastern priests in NA, despite their ancient traditions and practices. (I think that was only recently lifted.) So it shows that the popes are willing to impose even on the eastern Catholic rites. The easterners are not really free. I don’t think that re-affiliation would gain much except a little breathing time, until another pope crunched down on them.

  • Avatar

    I rather think that if Menzingen made positive moves towards a “normalisation” of relations with this pope, a new Mgr Lefebvre would emerge.

  • Avatar

    The SSPX will never come under the ‘fatherly’ (malign) influence of Bergoglio. Why fight all this time to give up now?

 

 

Michael Matt   has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

 

 

 

Who Will Be the Next Pope?

Written by  Michael Matt | Editor



ANAHEIM, California – For one weekend every year, the two great Magic Kingdoms of the world collide in Anaheim, California, when Disneyland’s neighborhood is taken over by the Catholic Church for the Religious Education Congress of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the largest annual gathering of Catholics in North America.
For those 72 hours, Anaheim becomes Rome, in that it’s entirely possible that around every street corner, you’re going to bump into an old Catholic friend.
This Sunday, Crux’s Christopher White and I bumped into one such old friend, and over breakfast we had one of those conversations that people absorbed by Church affairs often do. My friend posed the following question: If there were a St. Gallen group of center-right cardinals today trying to prepare for the next papal conclave, who would their candidate be?
(The reference is to a group of progressive cardinals who met occasionally between 1995 and 2006 to talk about future popes, and who played a role in the election of Pope Francis. The existence of the group was confirmed in a biography of Cardinal Godfried Daneels of Belgium.)
White and I kicked the question around, and here’s what we came up with: Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.

Comment: The most distressing thing about John Allen’s prediction is that should it turn out to be prophetic (which I doubt), O’Malley wouldn’t be the worst choice, the pool now swimming with papabile cardinals positively allergic to orthodoxy.

While a Pope Raymond Burke would require a direct act of God, a Pope Christoph Schönborn, Oscar Rodriguzez Maradiaga or Luis Antonio Tagle would seem almost inevitable, given the anti-Catholic bent of the new & improved Church of Accompaniment.

Believe it or nor, Cardinal O’Malley would be a step up from the rest, God help us all. 


anointing


And here we have Cardinal Sean O’Malley at the Sudbury United Methodist Church back in 2014, receiving a special blessing from “Reverend” Anne Robertson (a United Methodist priestess), who described the moment on her blog, annerebertson.org:

Cardinal O’Malley looked me in the eye and asked me to anoint him.  I did.  The divorced, Scottish Protestant clergywoman anointed the Irish Catholic Cardinal in front of a pew of Catholic clergy and a Catholic Bishop, any one of whom would probably have given their eye teeth to have the honor.  I choked back sobs all the way to the overflow room.
At the root of the word “significance” is the word “sign,” and that is what occurred in that moment of anointing.  You don’t get to be a Cardinal by being unaware of the significance of your public acts.  In a completely spontaneous moment, Cardinal O’Malley seized the opportunity of signifying the truth of Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  Which is, of course, also the truth of baptism.

And there you have it, Pope O’Malley would certainly have the ecumenical chops to succeed Pope Francis the Great. (How long, O Lord, how long.)

Published in Headline News Around the World



Join the discussion…

  • Avatar

    Marcel5 hours ago

    If Francis “is” the false prophet; as some say; who indeed will be the next pope???


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Robert Dahl6 hours ago

    The question arises: who might be the next “Sitter-in-the-High Chair” in Vatican City? Well, we already have two claimants dressed-in-white on-board—one strangely listed as “resigned”, silenced in a papal apartment with shutters drawn closed (with phones to the outer world apparently disconnected?)—and then we are burdened with, the Francis-One, who seldom actually sits in “The Chair” but walks-&-talks like “The Pontiff”. A vacuum seems to exist; which naturally may tead toward actual schism?
    This fracas recalls the historic Great Western Schism (AD-1378-1415) with its three concurrent claimants to the Chair of Peter (problem finally fixed with the Council of Florence—activated by the Byzantine crisis, with Muslim invasion of Constantinople).
    So who are we to judge? Hello, anyone—without judgment, errors may persist?
    Many, if not most folks, might welcome Franciscan Cardinal O’Malley of Boston as the preferred successor to the present “Sitter-in-Peter’s Chair”—especially since the Cardinal-Archbishop of Boston has received the “special blessing” of the Methodist lady-heretic “Most-Reverend” Annie Robertson—a “blessing” with a supposed Methodist “Holy Oil”, of sorts, unknown in all of Protestant history. Apparently the “Holy Oil” in this instance is miraculously produced by “tongue-spit” (also unknown in any Methodist ritual). So, “reverend” Annie Robertson has gained the desired notoriety, and the Franciscan-humbled Cardinal has again made a fool of himself? Par for the course?
    Monitor, please pass this comment to Editor, The Remnant. God bless all.


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    eduardo6 hours ago

    In these times it is very hard not to hold the sedevacantism…


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Chris Whittle6 hours ago

    Cardinal O’Malley is not a center-right bishop. He’s a shill for the Democratic Party, gives our RINO, pro-abortion et. al. (and Catholic school product) Lt. Gov. a free pass, and hates traditionalists, vets, patriots, etc. He’s undergoing an unfaithful interior restoration of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross (in violation of Federal Law because it’s on the National Register of Historic Places), and has Novus Ordo services in 19 languages other than Latin or English. The Catholic Appeal $$$ (which I don’t give to) now funds illegal immigrants, while parochial school scholarships favor affirmative action over the family’s orthodoxy.


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Dick Prudlo6 hours ago

    I await Mary’s intervention on this one.


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Pascalstriangle7 hours ago

    If Francis lasts 10 years, the church will be a much smaller body in the world.


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Thomas J. Ryan8 hours ago

    Only Ranjith can save us now


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Cradle Convert13 hours ago

    The next pope will be Peter Turkson.


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Henry Ptak20 hours ago

    Wouldn’t it be a delightful bit of irony if Benedict outlived Francis?

  • 4


  • Reply

  • Share ›

      Avatar

      Henry Ptak MKDAWUSS8 hours ago

      They’d probably send him back to his room, but the whole thing would be comically awkward, to say the least. I don’t know – can you re-assign a used “munus” after it’s already been divided? Can a divided “munus” be re-negotiated? How many ways can you split up a used “munus” posthumously?
      One should never leave the Divine Comedian that much room.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

    Avatar

    Tracey Kelly20 hours ago

    How long, O Lord, how long.
    We’re all growing weary aren’t we?
    I want to read about what’s going on in Our Church…and then always regret it.

  • 2


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    SJ Greena day ago

    ‘the two great Magic Kingdoms of the world collide …’ I had to chuckle at this. Equally fantastical and not in a good way, IMO (Disneyland and the Religious Education Conference).


  • Reply

  • Share ›

      Avatar

      JTSC SJ Green21 hours ago

      🙂 This made me chuckle also! As did this:
      “For those 72 hours, Anaheim becomes Rome, in that it’s entirely possible that around every street corner, you’re going to bump into an old Catholic friend.”
      Or maybe Goofy, who may actually at this point be more Catholic than
      your old Catholic friend!

    • 1


    • Reply

    • Share ›

    Avatar

    Hawaii Davea day ago

    Speculation on the next pope elicits nothing but ennui, scandalous as this sounds.

    Is it possible in the affairs of men to effect renewed allegiance and filial devotion to the institutional Church, after Her theologians, university presidents, and major religious orders detached themselves from her authority a couple of years after hijacking a Council? After bishops’ conferences did likewise soon after that? After free-thinkers put in their monarch puppet to consolidate 60 years of humanistic adherence?

    No, prideful men have pushed to the brink of revolution, and only man’s method (ie war) or Our Lord’s method (beyond our ken) will be the agent of resolution.


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    Traditionalista day ago

    Cardinal Sarah would be the best choice of who we know of right now. Personally, I’d be surprised to see an American pope.

  • 2


  • Reply

  • Share ›

      Avatar

      William Murphy Traditionalista day ago

      The traditional argument against electing an American to the Papacy was that it would concentrate spiritual as well as economic and military power in US hands. As I bet no one wants another South American or a Jesuit, an African or Asian candidate looks the least bad gamble.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

    Avatar

    Ginta day ago

    I don’t see a good choice in any of them because, really, do you honestly believe any of them will return the Catholic Church to what it was/should again be?


  • Reply

  • Share ›

    Avatar

    James • a day ago

    How could anybody possibly be upset that a Cardinal received a special blessing from a chicklette Methodist (and therefore heretical in multiple ways) pastor? After all, it is a fact known to the whole world that Bishops, Patriarchs, and even Popes of the first 4 or 5 centuries received special blessings from Marcionites, Gnostics of a dozen different specific types, Arians, Rabbis, and pagans – even female and gay priests of fertility cults. It was one big happy family of tolerance of everyone and everything. They would get together, a big rainbow, and hold hands and sing ‘Kumbajah’ and follow it with “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony.’

    Only an evil person would oppose such a pretty picture.

    Jorge Bergoglio was chosen Pope to bring back that paradise of tolerance.

  • 3


  • Reply

  • Share ›

      Avatar

      JTSC James21 hours ago

      I have always disliked the group Pink Floyd but I have this lyric of
      theirs playing in my head over and over all the time.
      “Breathe deep the gathering gloom”
      But I’m not sure how much worse that actually is than:
      (Please paint a flower on your face now in preparation)


    • Reply

    • Share ›
      • Avatar

        Pascalstriangle JTSC7 hours ago

        I think your quotation comes from the Moody Blues,
        “Breath deep the gathering gloom,
        Watch lights fade from every room……”
        It’s a poem from the Album “Days of Future Passed”

      • 1


      • Reply

      • Share ›

        Avatar

        malleus_stultorum Pascalstrianglean hour ago

        Recall the last stanza:
        Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
        Removes the colours from our sight
        Red is grey and yellow, white
        But we decide which is right
        And which is an illusion

        We are living in the Age of Illusion


      • Reply

      • Share ›

      Avatar

      Remnant Moderator . Jamesa day ago

      Beautiful! I don’t how we missed this, but we’d like to apologize for our neo-pelagianism, then.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

      Avatar

      MKDAWUSSa day ago

      Isn’t this a bit of a moot point right now, as Pope Francis doesn’t show any imminent signs of entering the afterlife? If Francis is still Pope 10 years from now the entire scene of Papabile candidates will be mostly (of not entirely) different.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

      Avatar

      plc53a day ago

      The heretical left have no need to elect a “centre right” pope. In fact they have no need to elect even a middle of the road kind of pope. The college of cardinals is stacked, and continues to be stacked deeper, with the heretical left. And another heretical left pope will succeed this heretical left pope. May God please see to it that I’m wrong about that.

      Of course someone such as Cardinal Burke hasn’t a snowball’s chance….nor, would I think, does Cardinal Sarah. They are, as Frank puts it, waaaay out on the “periphery”. And they’ll be even further out after the next conclave. The great kiss-up and easily manipulated Tagle would seem a likely choice for a nice little puppet-pope.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

        Avatar

        Barbara plc53a day ago

        Oh, please let it not be Tagle! Even let it be someone we know nothing about so that we could have a few days, maybe a week, before we have to head for the cellar and our stacks of wood, toilet paper and canned goods.

        I remember Chris Ferrera and Michael Matt in Rome after Francis was elected. They were almost speechless because there was so little known about this man. So a cautious peace reigned – then the merde hit the air-blowing implement and their cautiously expectant faces turned to incredulity at the horror of it all.


      • Reply

      • Share ›

      Avatar

      Paul54a day ago

      O’Malley is also infamous for passing Eucharists through the Mexico – USA border fence to a mob of protesters.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

      Avatar

      Mary Daltona day ago

      Cardinal Robert Sarah would be my choice.

    • 3


    • Reply

    • Share ›

        Avatar

        Roman Lance Mary Dalton17 hours ago

        Yeah, he would be good because even if he turned liberal he would not be so blithely loaded down with opprobrium, like the current Holy Father is by the tough talking “trads” who think it’s cool to refer to the Pope by anything other than his proper title, for fear of being called racists.


      • Reply

      • Share ›

      Avatar

      accelerator Mary Dalton18 hours ago

      Which will happen when the the Modernist Non-existent Hell freezes over. Schonborn is a likely bet, and he would be heralded as conservative even as he normalizes same-sex couplings. He could place James Martin over the CDF, hooray!


    • Reply

    • Share ›

      Avatar

      Tom Byrne Mary Dalton18 hours ago

      We may hope. Remember: We didn’t expect Ratzinger.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

      Avatar

      jobina Tom Byrne3 hours ago

      …or Trump.


    • Reply

    • Share ›

    • Michael Matt | Editor

      Michael Matt

      has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000. 

      Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

      Latest from Michael Matt | Editor

      More in this category: « Serving the Holy Mass of Padre Pio Cardinal advises bishops to closely follow canon law when closing churches »


      ********************************

      TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC WRITER CHRIS CONLEE SAYS FRANCIS IS AN ANTIPOPE


      Hi Eric,


      I’m a published writer (Cf. The New Oxford Review Jan. 2007-The Fever of Vatican II) I’ve written a piece about Francis being an anti-pope; this could finally get me excommunicated. But I admire you for going after this silly charlatan “Pope”  Good work Sir!

      One might think I’m crazy for gunning for the head of the Catholic Church. I took psychology at the University of Michigan – you’re only crazy if you think you’re normal and everyone else else is crazy. I think I’m as crazy as everyone else lol!  But I do have a certified MENSA IQ – so when I say I’m going after the Bishop of a billion Catholics with my pen I’m doing it –  I’ve already done it.  This Francis is destroying our sensus fidei
      ~Chris


      The Fever of Vatican II
      By Chris Conlee
      New Oxford Review
      January 2007

      http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0107-conlee

      Chris Conlee is an attorney in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and the proud father of four children.
      On October 11, 1962, the doors of the Vatican were swung open to the bishops, resplendent in formality and expectation, for they were embarking on a new endeavor. One of the goals of the Second Vatican Council was to bring the world into a more “enlightened era.” The Church’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” Gaudium et Spes, states, “history itself speeds along on so rapid a course that an individual person can scarcely keep abreast of it.


      The destiny of the human community has become all of a piece, where once the various groups of men had a kind of private history of their own. Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence, there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as important as can be, calling for new efforts of analysis and synthesis” (article 5; emphasis added). The philosophy of the Jesuit evolutionary scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was involved in one the greatest and gravest scientific scandals of all time, the Piltdown Man “fossil,” is clearly evident here. If this is the “working of the Holy Spirit,” as many modern prelates pound into the heads of the faithful, then, one may argue, the Holy Spirit Himself is an evolutionary object subject to change. But don’t question this “enlightened” view of reality, or you’ll be labeled a “heretic.” Never mind that Vatican II proclaimed no new dogmas, and thus if a thoughtful person questions a non-dogmatic tenet of this Council, he cannot be termed a heretic, since to constitute heresy, one must deny a dogma of the Church.


      Nobody was more jubilant about Vatican II than the secular media. The December 17, 1965, issue of LIFE magazine was headlined “Catholicism’s Epic Venture.” You know there is something askew when a modern, liberal publication is ecstatic about a Catholic Council. John K. Jessup wrote:


      Coming at a time when so many human faiths, loyalties and grips on truth are unmoored or slipping, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council which ended last week must be called the most impressive religious event this century has yet seen…. The spirit of the new era was symbolized by one of the closing events of the council, when the Pope shared with Protestant and Orthodox clergymen the conduct of a prayer and gospel-reading service in the monastic church of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. This service was not Roman, not Protestant and not Orthodox. It was simply Christian.


      “New era” is a term often heard. Supposedly, the “new era” envisioned in the 1960s did not include a wholesale exodus of priests, and many of the remaining priests engaged in pedophilia. The “new era” probably didn’t forecast a reduction in Mass attendance from 75 percent before Vatican II to roughly 30 percent afterward. Forty years ago it wasn’t acceptable to wear short skirts and tank tops to Mass; women wore chapel veils or hats. But most priests are too afraid — too emasculated — to speak out about those blasphemies these days. The sought-after “new era” of the 1960s probably didn’t contemplate that a majority of Catholics in 2006 would support abortion and contraception, priestesses, and other “progressive” trends. The “new era” probably didn’t anticipate that although roughly 70 percent of Catholics today don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would be all too eager to line up to take the Eucharist in an unworthy manner from relaxed lay ministers passing out the Body of Christ, hand to hand.


      Largely gone are resplendent churches, with their images of the Holy Family and saints, burning candles and smells of incense, women in ornate shawls, men wearing their Sunday best, and the sound of Gregorian chant connecting the modern believer to nearly 1,500 years of believers and saints who worshiped in substantially the same manner. Gone is the solidarity with believers throughout the world that comes with worshiping in the same language, replaced by a Babel of tongues and diverse practices. Of course, for centuries the Church has allowed a variety of rites to exist alongside the Latin rite, such as the beautiful and ancient Ambrosian rite, and the argument is made that Catholicism may not have spread as quickly in places such as Africa if believers there were forced to worship in a “European” manner. Still, when the Tridentine Latin Mass was ascendant, there was never a problem garnering converts throughout the world.


      During the Second Vatican Council, the subject of the liturgy was the first and most heavily debated topic. Of course, then as now, there was a divide between “traditionalists” and “progressives.” The schema prepared before the debate began advocated a more general use of the vernacular. Many of the traditionalists, however, would have none of it. Even the papal Master of Ceremonies condemned the schema. Cardinal Spellman of New York, Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles, and many others believed the Mass should be retained as it was, in Latin. Cardinal Feltin of Paris believed, on the other hard, that if the people didn’t understand the Mass, it was failing in its primary objective, though he did acknowledge that if “by chance the poorly instructed Catholic or even non-Catholic layman should find himself at mass, it ought to be immediately obvious to him that he was witnessing something tremendously significant, holy and profound.” Cardinal Tisserant of the Vatican Library noted that Hebrew and Greek were used by the first Christians. Japanese Bishop Kobayashi said that the exclusive use of Latin would appear to his people as something “western and alien.” Yet, arguably, a majority of the Western prelates believed that Latin in the Mass should be largely retained in areas where the “Church was long established and people were used to it….”


      At the end of the day, the progressives won. The liturgy was the first subject debated, and it was the first subject of the first completed document from Vatican II, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” Sacrosanctum Concilium, promulgated on December 4, 1963. It didn’t contain a draft of the Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order Mass, which in its final form would not come out until 1970, nearly four years after the fourth and final session. What this “Constitution” did call for was a complete dismantling of the Tridentine Latin Mass, which in its present form had existed since the 16th century, and had remained substantially the same for a thousand years before that. The Mass was to be “revised,” its rites “simplified,” and other elements “discarded.”


      Article 54 states that “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.” It also states, “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” As if this is even contemplated anymore! Although a “more extended use of the mother tongue is needed,” article 40 states, “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed….” In other words, it’s a liturgical free for all! To go along with this, bishops soon abandoned the devout practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays. Now we even have super-hip bishops who allow corned beef and cabbage when St. Patrick’s Day falls on Friday during Lent. Forget meatless Friday, baby, ’cause we’re groovin’ with the times!
      Gone are the incredibly moving, poetical words of the Latin Mass, forged during nearly two millennia of persecutions, triumphs, and history. Gone is the Mass of the majority of the saints, which was heard in solidarity with the average sinner for century upon century. Gone are the moving words, Introibo ad altare Dei, Ad Deum qui laetificat juentutem meam, replaced by, well, whatever! No doubt some priests can say the new Mass with profundity, but more often one is treated to the banal, with songs such as “When the Saints Come Marching In,” and priests wearing pink tennis shoes telling jokes about their Chihuahuas, and giving homilies about the evils of not washing one’s hands after one goes to the restroom. (The latter two examples really happened here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, whose full name translates to The Royal City of the Holy Father of St. Francis of Assisi.) Gone is any mention of “evil” or “Satan,” even as evil is increasing.


      Gone is the vertical orientation of the Mass, where the priest and faithful together orient themselves to Christ and His great sacrifice at Calvary. Now the Mass is a horizontal community gathering, or “meal,” with the priest facing the people, the people facing the priest, and the people holding hands, hand-grabbing, back-clapping, or otherwise making bodily contact whenever possible. Whatever they can do to distract each other from Christ! Recently I even had a deacon reach from two pews behind me and tap me on the back repeatedly until I would hold his hand during the Our Father.


      Writing about the great English writer and Catholic convert Evelyn Waugh, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote, “I somewhere opined that Evelyn Waugh’s death on Easter Sunday in 1966, the Sunday before the reformers promulgated the Kiss of Peace, was evidence that the Holy Spirit was in fact behind it all, but merciful in His afflictions: no imagination is so vivid as to visualize Mr. Waugh yanked from prayerful thought to clasp the hand of the pilgrim to his right, to his left, ahead, and behind him.”


      At the beginning of the Council, so sure was Evelyn Waugh that the Council wouldn’t dare abrogate the Latin Mass, that he wrote, in part, to William Buckley:
      The nature of the Mass is so profoundly mysterious that the most acute and holy men are continually discovering further nuances of significance. It is not a peculiarity of the Roman Church that much which happens at the altar is in varying degrees obscure to most of the worshipers. It is in fact the mark of all the historic, apostolic Churches. I think it highly doubtful whether the average churchgoer either needs or desires to have complete intellectual, verbal comprehension of all that is said. He has come to worship.


      It is doubtful that the string of 20th-century English literary converts such as Evelyn Waugh and G.K. Chesterton would have converted to Catholicism after having attended a protestantesque, watered-down New Order Mass. So much of the splendor and mystery is absent. One wonders how many potential converts we have lost since the Second Vatican Council. One goes to a New Order Mass to receive the Eucharist, since it is a valid rite, but one does not go for its beauty or splendor.


      In its “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council was in ecstasy about how beautiful every other religion is (not even praising itself as strongly). This document begins strangely by addressing Hinduism: “Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God” (emphasis added). Of Buddhism it says, “Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.” Wicca was not popular then, but it could have said of Wicca: “Wicca is a beautiful path whereby man, through nature, can realize the true modality of his commonality with foraging beasts, and flying creatures.”


      Although various religions do contain elements of beauty, and even great saints such as Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that Christians can attain good from them, Vatican II never mentions that the pagan’s flight toward his god(s) might lead to everlasting separation from God. God is a perfect and loving God, but He is not a swingin’ hipster God of relativism. If you choose to purposefully reject Christ, that’s it, baby. God is tolerant to a point, but believe it or not, there is an end point, at least according to Scripture and two thousand years of Catholic Tradition. Hell exists. It may or may not be the naked body upon naked body of the medieval painters, but it is an eternal separation from God, and that’s not a good thing. But there is no mention of Hell in Nostra Aetate, or Satan for that matter, and almost no mention of them elsewhere in the documents of Vatican II, which exemplifies the almost fanatical optimism that permeated the Council.


      One of the sillier and more ironic passages in the documents of Vatican II is the third article of “The Decree on the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life,” Perfectae Caritatis: “The manner of living, praying, and working should be suitably adapted to the physical and psychological conditions of today’s religious…. The way in which communities are governed should also be re-examined…. For this reason constitutions, directories, custom books, books of prayers and ceremonies, and similar compilations are to be suitably revised and brought into harmony with the documents of this sacred Synod. This task will require the suppression of outmoded regulations.” Presumably, the Council Fathers had hoped that doing away with “outmoded regulations” and providing the monks with La-Z-Boy chairs would lead to an increase in vocations to the religious life. Just the opposite happened: It is well documented that there was an exodus of priests and monks after Vatican II, and the void was either not filled, or filled with huge numbers of pedophile priests and monks.
      Although there are beautiful passages in the documents of Vatican II, words emanating from men with a real love for Christ, one cannot help but be persuaded by the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: “Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored…. The net result therefore seems to be negative” (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 24, 1984). And, “When I came home after the Council’s first session, I had been filled with the joyful feeling…of an important new beginning…. Now I became troubled by the change in ecclesial climate that was becoming ever more evident…. I tried to sound a first warning signal, but few noticed it” (Milestones, Memories 1927-1977). Cardinal Ratzinger said, regarding the near abolishment of the Tridentine missal, “Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum [during the Council of Trent]…[a reworking done] as one phase in a long history of growth…. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic…the old building was demolished, and another was built…” (ibid.).


      Most of the previous 20 councils before Vatican II were convened to combat error and proclaim new dogma; Vatican II was established to embrace the world — a world full of error. The Church would do well, at this grave juncture in her mostly glorious history, to increase the availability of the Tridentine Latin Mass (it can only be celebrated with an indult), and allow the Society of St. Pius X to reconcile with Rome by acknowledging its right to object to certain documents of Vatican II, including the declarations on religious freedom, ecumenism, and the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions, which are policies, not doctrine.


      Fr Hesse: Vatican II in Two Minutes


      About Me

      My photo

      TradCatKnight

      Eagle of the Fortress.
      Welcome to the New Crusade of the Immaculate and Sacred Hearts

      http://gloria.tv/?user=187983

      facebook.com/tradcatknights

      tradcatknight.blogspot.com

      tradcatknight.tumblr.com

      pinterest.com/ericgajewski71/

      twitter.com/TradCatKnight

      google.com/+EricGajewski

      youtube.com/user/tradcatknights

      tradcatknight.freeforums.net/

      View my complete profile



      *********************************************************

      FRANCIS FATIGUE UPDATE: Father Longenecker Has Had Enough

      Written by  Michael Matt | Editor



      In his book To Change the Church Ross Douthat observes that this is actually the way Pope Francis works, and the way Jesuits have worked in the past. They chip away and chip away–never quite saying what they mean but never quite denying it either.

      You’ll notice this is how James Martin works, for example. He never supports same sex marriage, but then he never condemns it either. If the document doesn’t forbid something they take it as given that it is not only allowed but preferred.

      So the pope says something outside the box and everybody gets nervous.

      Then the Vatican communications people go into damage control mode and only make things worse.

      So let’s assume that the pope really did tell an Argentinian feminist nun that certain forms of birth control are ok.

      Then the Communications Office says something bland like, “These words are not necessarily an accurate report of the Holy Father’s exact wording.”

      What they don’t do is issue a stout denial like “The Pope never spoke to that woman.” nor do they issue an unambiguous clarification. Neither do they issue a statement from the pope affirming without doubt that he upholds Catholic doctrine and morals.

      As a result more confusion, more doubt, more questions about the pope’s ability, his intentions and his game plan.

      Well, maybe there is another angle as well. It could be that the pope wishes to foster confusion. In other words, he’s being unclear, ambiguous and open ended on purpose. Over at CRUX John Allen highlights the pope’s Holy Week speeches and homilies and paints the pope as “the great iconoclast” and the idol the pope is pushing over and breaking is what he calls the “idol of truth.” Read the Rest HERE

      REMNANT COMMENT: Although it’s no secret that we here at The Remnant have come to cyber-blows in the past with Father Longenecker, I maintain that he is an honest man of integrity who is genuinely interested in defending the truth. His conclusion is something we can all rally around—rad trad and non-rad trad alike:

      Furthermore, while knowledgeable Catholics can dismiss headlines like, “Pope Says No Hell” you can be sure that our separated brethren read this and write off the Catholic Church as being just like any other liberal Protestant denomination.
      They’re not right, but I can understand their reasoning.
      All the more reason for Catholics at the local level to up their ante and be more radiantly, positively, joyfully Catholic. Now is the time for some truly dynamic, radical Catholicism to appear.

      Indeed! God bless Father Longenecker for this courageous article. May more of his brother priests be encouraged by his priestly example to speak out and lead the scattering flock in the direction of faithful adherence to the traditional Catholic truth…no matter what Modernist balderdash might still be forthcoming from the Eternal City.


      The Remnant Newspaper: It’s about Truth. Catholics, please subscribe today!


      remnant print ad

      Published in Headline News Around the World


      Join the discussion…

    • Avatar

      Marcel4 hours ago

      Mr. Matt,
      According to Canon law #1364.1 a catholic who commits heresy is excommunicated.
      So, my question is: … Is Pope Francis Catholic? If so he is no longer the pope. Am I correct in my interpretation???

    • 1


    • Reply

    • Share ›

        Avatar

        Remnant Moderator . Marcel4 hours ago

        Well, we’ll find out. Certainly this thing with hell is not enough to establish pertinacity. We don’t know for sure exactly what he said, and there are other times when he acknowledges the existence of hell. So he needs to be corrected and then correct his error. Pope John XXII embraced heresy but didn’t lose his office and was not excommunicated. We’re not interested in rushing to judge the pope. God and a future pope will do that. It’s our job to protest his errors and to call on rightful authority to formally correct him. Thanks for your comment.

      • 2


      • Reply

      • Share ›

        Avatar

        One Among Many… Remnant Moderator4 hours ago

        Back the truck, here.
        In the days of John XXII, a Catholic was permitted to have and profess a theological *opinion*. The pope made it clear that he could be disagreed with since it was, again, his mere opinion. So he was just mistaken, but in good faith.
        That is totally different from what we see and have seen for almost 60 years.


      • Reply

      • Share ›

      Avatar

      cs5 hours ago

      Dear Michael,

      You are truly such a good man, who puts love of the Church before all!

      Whatever differences we as Catholics have had in the past, must be put behind for the sake of Christ’s Church; never to compromise what is True, but to welcome those
      who now ‘see’ what must be seen, for the sake of the Church and the sake of souls.

    • 1


    • Reply

    • Share ›

      Avatar

      louiseyvette5 hours ago

      Always with the “joyful”. Maybe just start with orthodoxy.

    • 2


    • Reply

    • Share ›

        Avatar

        Liz louiseyvette4 hours ago

        A lack of joy can often weaken Faith. Trust me, I know, so let’s just keep “joyful” in there where it belongs. You can have both, and if you don’t have the joy, something is wrong. It’s not uncommon for traditional Catholics to believe that things like joy, love, compassion and understanding are somehow liberal and evil. They aren’t. I personally know plenty of people whose Faith was basically destroyed by somebody who traumatized them with criticism, hatred and severe legalism. For others who had the same experiences, the only thing that saved them was the fact that they had solid catechesis and were able to hold onto the Faith regardless of the way they were treated.

      • 1


      • Reply

      • Share ›

    • Antipope Francis Denies Hell (again), Christ’s Divinity (again) and God’s Love For Humanity (again)… Just in Time for the Triduum!

      Antipope Francis Denies Hell (again), Christ’s Divinity (again) and God’s Love For Humanity (again)… Just in Time for the Triduum!

       

       

      Antipope Bergoglio has denied the existence of hell and preached the lie of soul annihilation before today.  But consider the spite that he has to have for Jesus Christ and His Holy Church to make sure that this latest salvo gets published just as the Triduum begins.  Top headline on Drudge for HOURS.

      Folks, it really is important to understand that when I say how truly malignant and spiteful these people are, and desperately try to inform as many people as I can that these people LITERALLY HATE GOD, and thus are in a state of WAR AGAINST HIM AND HIS HOLY CHURCH, AND THUS EVERY HUMAN BEING BY EXTENSION, I’m not engaging in hyperbole.  I’m dead, dead serious.

       


      The next thing to remember in all of this is that Antipope Bergoglio is not an Antipope because he is an arch-heretic.  Antipope Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope because of Pope Benedict XVI’s INVALID RESIGNATION, made in the SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS belief that Pope Benedict could fundamentally transform the papacy by bifurcating and expanding the Petrine Office into a “synodal, collegial” office, containing both “active” and “contemplative” participants.  Wrong.  And thus per Canon 188, Pope Benedict never ceased being the Pope, BY THE LAW ITSELF, and is the one and only living Pope to this day.

      Antipope Bergoglio’s heresy is a CONFIRMING DATASET, but it is NOT germane to the question of Pope Benedict’s invalid attempted abdication, which predated the Bergoglian Antipapacy by fully two weeks.  ANTIPOPE BERGOGLIO CAN’T BE DEPOSED, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT OCCUPY THE PETRINE SEE.  Only a person who is validly occupying a given office can be deposed from said office.  They only path forward IN TRUTH is that Antipope Bergoglio be PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS AN ANTIPOPE, AND SENT PACKING ACCORDINGLY. If this is done while Pope Benedict XVI is still living, NO CONCLAVE CAN BE CALLED, BECAUSE IF POPE BENEDICT IS ALIVE, AND HAS NOT VALIDLY RESIGNED, THEN THE SEE IS OCCUPIED, AND IT IS THEREFORE ONTOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ELECT A POPE – ONLY ANOTHER ANTIPOPE.
      Next, given that we know that Antipope Bergoglio is an Antipope and arch-heretic, and also doing pretty much everything one could expect the Anti-John the Baptist, aka False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, to do, what we should do is take his vile heresy and actually use it as a point of departure for examining ourselves.  In particular, we need to all do some serious soul-searching on the question of if WE believe in hell.  Do we secretly harbor in the deep, or even not-so-deep corners of our minds the belief that the worst that can possibly happen to anyone is “lights out”?  Do we not realize that these whispers and assumptions of soul annihilation are the Serpent in the Garden whispering, “No, you shall not die the death….” Do we deny the existence of hell in order to acquire or maintain HUMAN RESPECT? Do we stay silent on hell in order to maintain earthly relationships and avoid all possibility of “uncomfortable conversations”?

      The truth is, ONE OF THE BEST THINGS YOU CAN DO FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS IS THINK ABOUT AND PREACH HELL.

      Further, the existence of hell and eternal damnation is a proofset of God’s love and RESPECT for us.  If God didn’t really love us, if He didn’t respect us AS RATIONAL INTELLECTS that are free to choose our actions, then soul annihilation is EXACTLY what He would do.  The fact is that the “god” Antipope Bergoglio is describing is a being DEVOID OF LOVE, who has less than zero respect for humanity.  Antipope Bergoglio is trying to convince the world that satan is God, and that satan in his “mercy” will just snuff you out of existence if “things don’t work out”.  No harm, no foul.
      If God just started snuffing beings out of existence when they made a choice that wasn’t in accord with His will, wouldn’t that cheapen all life and existence to the point of meaninglessness? Wouldn’t all rational beings just be mere object-playthings at that point? Yep.

      Love means putting up with the periodic insufferable behavior of the beloved. Most ESPECIALLY for God.  The corollary to this is the following fact:  No matter what you do, you will always, always, always exist.  God loved you into existence, and loves you because you exist, and will never stop loving you, and will never, ever snuff you out of existence, no matter what.  If you reject Him, that is your free choice, but understand, you will continue to exist FOREVER after you have rejected God.  Every one of us will exist and exist forever – either in Heaven (inside of the Trinity, the Beatific Vision), or completely cut off from Him.  F.O.R.E.V.E.R.  That’s hell.  There is no “snuffed out of existence feeling neither happiness nor pain” option.  So disabuse yourself of that lie right now.
      Finally, remember that Antipope Bergoglio’s denials of hell are also by ONE LOGICAL STEP a denial of the Divinity of Christ.  Our Lord spoke early and often of hell and eternal damnation in the Gospels. If there is no hell, then Christ was either mistaken or a liar.  Either way, according to Antipope Bergoglio, Jesus Christ is NOT God.  And thus, if Jesus is not God, then we are not saved, and The Church is an ontological joke and needs to be removed from the face of the earth. Or, perhaps REPLACED…. After all, it would be a shame to not keep all of that real estate, fundraising capability and political power under one roof.
      As the Passion of Christ’s Holy Church plays out before our very eyes, here is the Responsory after the Ninth Lesson (third Nocturn of Matins) in tonight’s Office of Tenebrae.
      Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
      Lord Jesus Christ, Man of Sorrows, have mercy on us.
      **************************
      Latin Lyrics:
      Caligaverunt oculi mei a fletu meo,
      Quia elongatus est a me,
      Qui consolabatur me.
      Videte, omnes populi,
      Si est dolor similis sicut dolor meus.
      O vos omnes, qui transitis per viam,
      Attendite et videte,
      Si est dolor similis sicut dolor meus.
      Translation:
      My eyes are blinded from My tears,
      Because far from Me is,
      Anyone who will comfort Me.
      See, all ye people,
      If there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow.
      O, all ye who pass by the road,
      Stop and see,
      If there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow.

       

      TradCatKnight Radio, “Francis Is An Infidel”  

       

      *******

      SOURCE

       

       _________________________________