Latest Posts

LGBT activism thriving in Archdiocese of Baltimore

30. October, 2014Blog Post65 comments

On October 23, 2014, Catholic Review – the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Baltimore – published a thoroughly scandalous article undermining Church teaching on homosexuality that even included a sacrilegious image you won’t believe.

Watch the video below, and then join me in urging Archbishop William E. Lori to defend the Holy Catholic Faith.

Catholic Review: “St. Matthew broaches topic of coming out for parents, gay Catholics”

Walking the Roman tightrope

29. October, 2014Blog Post98 comments

TightropeI rarely feel compelled to do “follow-up” posts on a given topic on consecutive days, but the Cardinal Burke post from yesterday is screaming for one.

Let’s take a walk down memory lane…

February 20, 2014: Cardinal Walter Kasper delivered his now infamous address to the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals.

February 21, 2014: Pope Francis hailed Kasper’s address as “profound and serene theology … theology done on one’s knees.”

As news of the Bishop of Rome’s breathless praise for Kasper’s assault on the Catholic faith spread, so-called “traditionalists” and “conservative” Catholics alike were understandably outraged.

It was in this atmosphere that on that very same day, February 21st, L’Osservatore Romano published a speech given by Cardinal Raymond Burke to the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (the same group involved in the BuzzFeed interview) wherein His Eminence offered reflections on the pontificate of Pope Francis.

National Catholic Register reported on the speech saying, “Cardinal Burke Praises Pope Francis’ Efforts to Re-Christianize the West.”

LifesiteNews stated, “Cardinal Burke has defended the pope.”

Fr. Z applauded Cardinal Burke for “explaining” the pope.

No small number of tradition-minded Catholics, some of whom now have their drawers in a knot over yesterday’s post, lamented their disappointment in Cardinal Burke; some even going so far as to suggest that he was a sell-out and a coward.

My take was entirely different.

On February 25th, I published a post making the case that Cardinal Burke’s speech, if read carefully, reveals some very pointed criticism of the pope, and is more properly understood as an exercise in ecclesial gamesmanship and a bit of Romanità.

Fast forward to the present…

It seems to me that Cardinal Burke, in his BuzzFeed interview, was once again engaging in a similar brand of ecclesial gamesmanship; his words having been carefully chosen so as to criticize the pope for harming the Church without saying so verbatim.

His Eminence’s… ahem… “clarification” left virtually no room for confusion, however; only the pope can provide what is lacking; i.e., he alone is to blame for allowing this crisis to persist. Cardinal Burke said:

As the now published verbatim interview reveals, I was perfectly clear that it was a lack of clarity about where the Holy Father stands on issues related to marriage and Holy Communion that had caused the harm.  It is precisely for this reason that I subsequently said that only a statement from the Holy Father himself could now remove this lack of clarity.

While such non-distinctions may be appreciated among some in Rome, in the real world, not so much.

Those who are as yet still able to think clearly realize that one cannot point a finger of blame at another individual’s irresponsible behavior (in this case the pope’s silence as to his position) without also necessarily indicting the individual himself (in this case, the pope).

If you, dear reader, are among those who still can’t manage to grasp this reality, try invoking the Burke defense in a court of law: “I’m innocent, Your Honor, my unwillingness to behave responsibly, however, is guilty as hell,” and let me know how that works out for you.

In any event, Cardinal Burke was perhaps too clever by half.

Unlike L’Osservatore Romano, BuzzFeed didn’t immediately publish a word-for-word transcript of the interview as I suspect he assumed they would. As it is, the nuance he intended, utterly lame though it may be, was lost.

Blaming the media, of course, is low hanging fruit. It has long been the papal apologists’ favorite defense in the face of the preposterous, and some among our traditional brothers and sisters are apparently prepared to join them in defense of Cardinal Burke’s meaningless clarification.

For my money, however, BuzzFeed’s initial report, excerpted below, was entirely appropriate:

Burke said … the pope had “done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.”   

The quotation marks in this excerpt are precisely where they belong, and the conclusion is perfectly logical.

All of this said, Cardinal Burke’s excessive Romanità is also plainly revealed in his contention that “the pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter.”


There is a point at which the overuse of nuance threatens to undermine one’s credibility, and in my estimation, Cardinal Burke is unnecessarily walking a tightrope here.

He was among those present when Pope Francis heaped effusive praise upon Cardinal Kasper’s presentation to the Consistory, for crying out loud!

No, Pope Francis didn’t explicitly say, “Kasper’s position is my position” (for he too was indulging in some Romanità), but no one with any sense whatsoever, including Cardinal Burke, has any doubt whatsoever where the pope stands. He has made his position entirely clear for those with ears to hear in any number of ways. (Remember his phone call to the divorcee from Argentina?)

The point is this; Cardinal Burke is way overplaying the Roman game.

While it was perhaps advisable for the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura to craft his words very carefully back in February so as to preserve his position in Rome, where he arguably might do more good than elsewhere; as of today, that ship has all but sailed.

Cardinal Burke has personally confirmed that he about to be transferred to a mere figurehead position (Chaplain of the Knights of Malta), and this after having been stripped of his place on the Congregation for Bishops shortly after speaking critically of Evangelii Gaudium in an interview with EWTN last December.

The only thing left at this point for Cardinal Burke to preserve is the truth, plain and simple.

Look, Rome is on fire; subtle suggestions that there’s a hint of smoke emanating from Domus Santa Marta aren’t useful, and the fact that Cardinal Burke apparently doesn’t recognize as much tells me that he hasn’t been entirely spared the diabolical disorientation that ravages so many in the Church today, even if in lesser degree than most.

The bottom line is simply this: Cardinal Burke’s interview with BuzzFeed received considerable attention for a good reason.

Any time a Curial cardinal publicly calls out the Roman Pontiff for the harm that he is causing the Church, it’s a big deal.

In spite of Cardinal Burke’s attempt to put that toothpaste back in the tube, apparently for no better reason than to preserve the nuance with which he deliberately labored to speak in the first place, the fact remains that he most certainly did point a finger of blame at the pope, and very rightly so as most on these pages would readily agree.

And guess what? The pope knows it, even if some among our friends are unable to recognize as much.

As such, this story remains big news; not because Cardinal Burke can save the day, but because the climate in Rome for the remainder of this dreadful pontificate, especially among the College of Cardinals, is important – not just for the present oment, but as an indication of where we might be headed.

And this brings me back to the conclusion to yesterday’s post; no one in Rome is capable of fixing this mess other than a pope, current or future, who is willing to do as Our Lady of Fatima requested. No one.

Blessed Mother has promised that this will happen; it’s just a matter of when. In the meantime, we’ll pray and fast and keep our eyes wide open.

On which note, while Cardinal Burke’s meaningless distinction, ostensibly ordered toward providing a clarification of his comments, has been enough to cause some otherwise intelligent people to relegate this most newsworthy of events in Rome to just one big misunderstanding, I for one have no such intention.

Join me in Portland, OR

28. October, 2014Blog Post20 comments

On November 22nd, I will have the privilege of speaking at an event hosted by the Society of St. Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima Church in Portland, OR.

If you’re in the area, please join us. In any event, please spread the word. This promises to be a memorable evening.

The title of my talk is, “Popes St. Pius X and Francis: A Study in Contrasts”

In this presentation I’ll discuss the stark contrast between what Pope St. Pius X understood to be the requirements of his exalted office, and the approach currently taken by Pope Francis. Rather than simply celebrating the glorious memory of Pope St. Pius X with a strict focus on the past, we’ll reach the inevitable conclusion that the gifts and the insights that guided his pontificate are of a timeless nature, therefore, a Holy Father with the wherewithal to reign after the manner of this saintly pope is precisely what the Church and the world in our day desperately needs.

SSPX Poster

Cardinal Burke: Stupid or Disoriented?

28. October, 2014Blog Post86 comments

amigos1Cardinal Burke has given a statement to the Dignitatis Humanae Institute with the intent of clarifying certain of the comments that were attributed to him in a recent interview with BuzzFeed News.

As reported by BuzzFeed, Cardinal Burke said the pope had “done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.”

The headline of the DHI posting maintains that the BuzzFeed quote above is a “major misrepresentation” of Cardinal Burke’s actual words.


Why Cardinal Burke now feels compelled to split rhetorical hairs in order to create distance between himself and the plain meaning of his very own words is unknown to me, but let’s not kid one another; that is precisely what he is doing.

Following is the operative part of the BuzzFeed interview transcript, which all parties concerned, including Cardinal Burke, have confirmed as accurate:

BuzzFeed News: To the question of how that’s being done, presumably the pope was the one who asked Cardinal Kasper to frame the synod. Are you saying that [the pope] is the one who is manipulating these proceedings?

Cardinal Burke: The pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter and people conjecture that because of the fact that he asked Cardinal Kasper — who was well known to have these views for many, many years — to speak to the cardinals and has permitted Cardinal Kasper to publish his presentation in five different languages and to travel around advancing his position on the matter, and then even recently to publicly claim that he’s speaking for the pope and there’s no correction of this.

I can’t speak for the pope and I can’t say what his position is on this, but the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm.

BuzzFeed News: Would it be inappropriate for the pope to do that? To structure the conversation in such a way that it is consistent with his thinking?

Cardinal Burke: According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no it wouldn’t be correct.

OK, this isn’t real complicated, folks, but for the dull of intellect, let’s go through it step by step:

Cardinal Burke readily confirms that he said, “The pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter … the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm.”

Is it a “major misrepresentation” to say that Cardinal said that the pope has done a lot of harm?

Perhaps an analogy will help.

Imagine a married man who refuses to tell his wife whether or not he loves her even in the midst of a terrible marital crisis wherein the poor wife is consumed with doubt as to her husband’s affections. Needless to say, the crisis, such as it is, would effectively be put to rest if only the calculating, untrustworthy twerp would simply man up and openly declare where he stands.

According to the dictates of Cardinal Burke’s post-interview spin job, it would be wrong in this case to attribute the damage being inflicted upon the marriage to the husband, because technically it isn’t really he whose to blame but rather his childish unwillingness to behave like a real man.

If you buy into that line of argument, or Cardinal Burke’s “clarification,” I’m sorry, but your stupidity is likely terminal and I can do nothing for you.

Now let’s take a closer look at the second part of the selected quotes from the interview transcript provided above, which is arguably even more telling than the first.

BuzzFeed asked Cardinal Burke if it would be inappropriate for the pope to structure the Synod “in such a way that it is consistent with his thinking.”

Cardinal Burke answered, “According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no it wouldn’t be correct.”

This is very telling indeed.

In truth, it would only be inappropriate for the pope to structure a Synod according to his own thinking if indeed his “thinking” is out of step with “the Church’s teaching and discipline.”

For example, if Pope St. Pius X had convened a meeting of bishops to discuss matters of importance for the Church and took deliberate steps to see to it that their conversation was ordered according to his thinking, such would be not only entirely appropriate; it would be a great blessing for the Church and an effective exercise of his papal duties.

We can say this because we know very well that the thinking of this true Saint of Holy Church was entirely in step with the mind of the Church as it relates to teaching and discipline. No brainer, right?

So, how is it that Cardinal Burke can contend the exact opposite in the case of Pope Francis?

The answer is simple; he like everyone else with a pulse knows damned well that the current Bishop of Rome does not think and feel with the Holy Catholic Church on any number of matters, including those under discussion at the most recent Synod of Bishops.

So, what have we learned?

Well, since Cardinal Burke is far from stupid, in spite of his patently ludicrous attempt to explain away the plain meaning of his words, it seems entirely clear that His Eminence, for all of his good points, is also infected with the diabolical disorientation of which Our Lady warned.

And that, my friends, is the bottom line.

The problem at hand in the Church today is first and foremost spiritual. There is no one, and I mean absolutely no one in Rome capable of fixing this mess other than a pope, current or future, who is willing to do as Our Lady of Fatima requested. Only she can cure the terrible illness that currently afflicts us.

Proselytism and the Finding in the Temple

27. October, 2014Blog Post50 comments

finding in the templeWhy do we bother proselytizing, or to ask the question using the definition provided by Pope Francis, why do we seek to persuade others to embrace the Holy Catholic faith?

Well, for one, because it is precisely the mission of the Church to do so, but also because this is what charity demands of us.

Praying the Rosary this morning, it occurred to me that the Finding in the Temple is a fitting reflection on “proselytizing” as a supreme act of charity ordered toward helping those who long for Christ.

And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch. And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem. And his parents knew it not. And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’s journey and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my father’s business? (Luke 2:41-49)

Even among the greatest of saints, there is none in this life who attained the degree of unity with Christ as that which belonged to the Blessed Virgin Mary; the sinless Mother of God who ever rested and remained in the Divine will.

As Pope Pius XII stated in his Encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, Ad Caeli Reginam, “For from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature.”

Though her immense privileges were undoubtedly a source of unshakeable and unspeakable joy, the likes of which were matched in degree only by the sorrows that pierced her Immaculate Heart, we contemplate in the fifth Joyful Mystery, the Finding in the Temple, how Our Lady was left to long for physical union with her Son and Savior when faced with His absence; her joy in some sense incomplete until such time as He was found.

This event in Our Blessed Mother’s life is a fitting image of the Christian journey wherein even those who are configured to Christ in the waters of Baptism, no matter how devout and sincere, are destined to long for more in this life until such time as they cease being separated from His Mystical Body, the Holy Catholic Church.

It is in the Holy Catholic Church alone where one finds:

  • The temple wherein the voice of Our Lord is present in the sacred Magisterium that continues to teach and give wisdom in His name.
  • The temple wherein the “Father’s business,” the work of redemption, is continued by Our Lord in the here-and-now in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
  • The temple wherein Our  Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Most Holy Eucharist.

In short, we seek to persuade others to enter the Holy Catholic Church and to persist in the Holy Catholic faith because it is only in doing this that one may experience the joy of finding Our Blessed Lord in the Temple.

And what are we to think of those who refuse to proselytize?

It is as though they are among the company of Mary and Joseph, who in spite of knowing precisely where the Lord can be found, refuse to alleviate the sorrow of those who seek Him by pointing the way to the temple that is the Holy Catholic Church alone.

Unless, of course, they neither know nor believe that this is the case…

Reports of openness to SSPX greatly exaggerated

24. October, 2014Blog Post167 comments

pozzoMarco Tossati is reporting in Vatican Insider that the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, in a recent interview with the French weekly Famille Chrétienne, is suggesting that Rome is willing to apply a heretofore unknown degree of flexibility in its relationship with the SSPX.

The archbishop said:

Any reservations or positions the Society of St. Pius X may have regarding aspects which are not related to faith but to pastoral questions or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium do not necessarily need to [be] withdrawn or relinquished.

According to Archbishop Pozzo (as reported by Tossati), the Society’s reservations are linked to “aspects of pastoral care or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium.”

Some are suggesting that this signals something of a breakthrough and a newfound openness on the part of Rome. I disagree.

For one thing, it is either a gross misunderstanding of, or an egregious misrepresentation of, the Society’s position to relegate their criticisms of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to matters of mere “pastoral care or prudential teaching,” as if doing so would in some way make them of secondary importance.

For him to imagine that the SSPX would concede as much strikes me as naïve at best.

One may see in Archbishop Pozzo’s statement a temptation to embrace the error of the false ecumenists that Pope Pius XI so succinctly condemned in Mortalium Animos:

In connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.

For example, it appears that Archbishop Pozzo is suggesting that it’s just fine for the SSPX to reject (as it should) the contents of Nostra Aetate even as “Rome” professes the thoroughly preposterous notion, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles making both one in Himself” (NA 3) as such is presumably less-than-fundamental.

Furthermore, Archbishop Pozzo’s comments also seem to reflect the same dreadful disease that landed the Extraordinary Synod in such critical condition; namely, the insipid notion that “pastoral care / prudential teaching” and doctrine can be treated as distant cousins when indeed (in particular relative to the Society’s concerns) they are more akin to conjoined twins.

The archbishop went on to say:

There is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council documents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.

Again, we see repeated here the same foolish idea that the problematic parts of Vatican II (and the Novus Ordo) somehow refer to something other than doctrine. That’s incorrect to the point where one has to wonder if Archbishop Pozzo isn’t pazzo, or perhaps making statements that he doesn’t truly believe as if to propose a “creative” way forward.

We shall see how things proceed from here, but any supposed way forward that requires the SSPX to deny the expressly doctrinal character of their concerns is no way forward at all; it’s simply a guarantee that the crisis will endure.

Beyond this, I find Archbishop’s Pozzo’s reference to “the wording of the Second Vatican Council” almost amusing.

What is any council if not its “wording”?

I can’t really say precisely what he means to imply. That said, I am reminded of the “hermeneutic of continuity” illusion which has always been predicated upon the misconception that “the Council” can somehow be understood apart from what it actually said.

Archbishop Pozzo continued:

There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text … Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them; [the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecumenism] are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.

Setting aside the fact that the Council declared exactly zero of its propositions binding (the requirement expressed in the Nota Praevia found in Lumen Gentium), one wonders exactly what it means to suggest that a given text is just somewhat binding and kinda authoritative.

This is a concept that can only be acceptable to those who have bought into the unfounded novelty of “a little communion” among the heretics such as it was proposed in Lumen Gentium; the aforementioned “doctrinal declaration.”

For the record, I’m not one of those people, and I think it is safe to say that the SSPX isn’t either.

In summary, Archbishop Pozzo’s comments don’t represent a new degree of openness to the SSPX at all; at best they amount to little more than a subtle suggestion for papering over the very real doctrinal deficiencies in the conciliar text (to say nothing of the Novus Ordo) and the havoc wrought on the Body of Christ as a result.

End of the world…

23. October, 2014Blog Post60 comments

Faithful Catholics sometimes feel like everything is falling apart. Well, to some extent it is, and I know why.

Secret Synod: Original screenplay by Paul VI

21. October, 2014Blog Post129 comments

Now PlayingAt the close of the Extraordinary Synod, Pope Francis delivered a closing address that deserves some close attention. Speaking before the august assembly, he said:

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

We must give the Holy Father credit when credit is due, and His Holiness spoke very well when he suggested that we have just experienced (nay, endured) synodality at its finest.

At this, it is helpful to consider the purpose for which the “Synod of Bishops” was created.

Pope Paul VI, less than a year after placing an “explanatory note” in Lumen Gentium that was ostensibly ordered toward toning down the constitution’s inflated treatment of the college of bishops’ resident powers, threw what might be considered a bone to the “collegiality lobby” by issuing the Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo.

According to this Letter, which established the Synod of Bishops:

The Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the function of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.
1. The general purpose of the Synod are:
a) to promote a closer union and greater cooperation between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops of the whole world;
b) to see to it that accurate and direct information is supplied on matters and situations that bear upon the internal life of the Church and upon the kind of action that should be carrying on in today’s world;
c) to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.    

A sober reading of the synod’s job description reveals that it has ever been a ticking time bomb, but perhaps not so much in the way that most tradition-minded Catholics might immediately recognize; namely, as an instrument by which the bishops might one day exercise a decision making power that threatens to undermine the Church’s monarchical structure as instituted by Christ.

In fact, it really does the opposite.

As I read it, Apostolica Sollicitudo quietly, and with a subtlety worthy of the Master Deceiver himself, set the stage where upon the “God of surprises” would one day make an appearance in a production called “the Synod.” The actual play, however, wouldn’t be ready to open in earnest until such time as the intended audience, the faithful, were sufficiently stripped of their sensus Catholicus; a process presently completed in large measure thanks to the Mass of Paul VI.

Even then the spectacle would require the services of a very special Bishop of Rome; one “humble” enough to take on the role of the Almighty.

Pay close attention to the operative part of Apostolica Sollicitudo which states, “…to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.”

Really? Can someone, anyone, please tell me exactly which “essential matters of doctrine” are as yet so incompletely defined as to constitute a legitimate source of disagreement among authentic Catholics?

Clearly, folks, there aren’t any.

Even Pope John XXIII, in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, made it clear that “the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians … is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.”

As such, according to John XXIII, no need existed for the Council Fathers to engage in “a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.”

And yet, if one reads Apostolica Sollicitudo carefully, one sees that in establishing the Synod, Paul VI created what has always had the potential of being nothing less than Vatican II on steroids.

One must also take notice that in spite of the Synod being held up as a hub of collegiality, its “power of making decisions” only exists “when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff,” and even then “it belongs to him to ratify the [Synod’s] decisions.”

In other words, the Synod is really nothing more than a pulpit from which the Holy Father is able to pronounce “essential matters of doctrine” as if the “God of surprises” has yet to aid His Church in settling such matters, and all of this under the guise of collegiality.

On 13 March 2013, a star was born…

This dog and pony show is precisely what we witnessed last week as Pope Francis forced the Synod’s stamp upon the abominable Midterm Report of October 13.

Incidentally, those who believe that the final Relatio somehow represents a corrective that has effectively rendered the Midterm Report little more than a bitter memory are sadly mistaken. We’ll review that document later, but for now, let’s continue to focus on the pope’s closing address to the Synod.

While the weak-kneed among us are hailing the closing address as an occasion wherein Pope Francis somehow defended the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine (which, by the way, is his solemn obligation), the truth is he did nothing of the sort.

What the pope really did was equivocate on the matter while pointing a finger of disgust at those who clearly recognize that there are no “essential matters of doctrine” up for questioning (aka Catholics).

Pope Francis said:

One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

Get that? Those who have “certitude” in the “written word” (read: the “essential matters of doctrine” that have been taught with unfailing consistency throughout the centuries) not only lack “flexibility;” such persons are indeed “hostile!”

Those people have a name, of course, and it is a very dirty one in this pope’s mind, “traditionalist.”

And toward what exactly are those rascally traditionalists (aka Catholics) hostile?

Well, toward “God” himself; the same who has many wonderful surprises to reveal if only we will allow it!

This is what passes for a pope “defending the faith” to some. Amazing. For such individuals the bar hasn’t simply been lowered, it has been buried.

Among other “temptations” listed by Pope Francis, was this gem:

The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei,” not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

What we have here is a pope publicly denigrating the Martyrs and the great ecumenical councils that respectively died and labored to convey the depositum fidei in “meticulous language;” the only language worthy of being passed down to future generations so that they too may come to know and to love God in truth, ordering their lives well upon His Holy Law.

And this as if beatifying Paul VI wasn’t thumb-in-the-eye of the Communion of Saints enough.

In any case, the pope went about describing a total of five “temptations,” any number of which were communicated in what he must imagine is the clever use of metaphors, but which ultimately end up meaning pretty much whatever the reader wants it to mean (as opposed to that damnable habit of speaking in the “meticulous language” of those whose “yes” means, yes, and whose “no” means, no).

The Bishop of Rome summed up his litany thus:

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Let’s be clear, Jesus was never tempted from within as are those delinquents with crosier and mitre who speak of the doctrine of the faith as if it were but a lump of clay that is constantly shaped by the “God of surprises,” when in truth they seek only to mold the Church in their own image and likeness.

Pope Francis cavalierly, if not predictably, went on to credit the chicanery of the Synodal proceedings to the neo-modernists’ pet unstoppable force; “the spirits,” a close cousin of the “God of surprises.”

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace.

Indeed, what a terrible tragedy it would be for the bishops to gather with the Successor of Peter as if all were in agreement as to the “essential matters of doctrine,” in which case there would no blessed reason for the Synod to convene in the first place.

I could continue pointing to the arsenic laced throughout the Holy Father’s address but will spare both myself and you, dear reader, the agony.

Let it suffice to say that Pope Francis ended the Synod, not by doing that which the Vicar of Christ is solemnly obligated to do, defend the Holy Catholic Faith and her children; rather, he simply made it rather clear (for those with ears to hear, anyway) that he has no intention whatsoever of doing so at any point in the foreseeable future (divine intervention notwithstanding).

In some large measure, we can thank Paul VI for this mess, and therefore can only marvel at both the fittingness, and the sheer arrogance, of the decision to beatify this destroyer of the Church of dreadful memory at the Synod’s conclusion.

Well played, Satan, well played.

CMTV: Consistency in hypocrisy

20. October, 2014Blog Post234 comments

CMTV HypocrisyIn a blog post published on Saturday, I voiced my disagreement with those who said that Michael Voris, in light of his “Breaking News” video reporting on Cardinal Burke’s comments about “the pope harming the Church,” is in some way “seeing the light.”

Well, I hate to say I… nah, to hell with the formalities, I told ya so.

As some of you have already noticed, the above referenced CMTV video has since been deleted. The question is, why has it been removed?  There aren’t all that many possible answers…

Could it be that Michael has decided that Cardinal Burke’s comments aren’t really newsworthy, or perhaps even true, and much less newsworthy enough to have merited leaving the dinner table in order to file a report from St. Peter’s Square at midnight Rome time?

No, that doesn’t make any sense. Any time a highly placed Cardinal speaks thus of the pope, and even publicly calls on him to reaffirm doctrine, it’s newsworthy. Furthermore, everyone with a pulse knows that Cardinal Burke’s comments are true.

Did Cardinal Burke ask for it to be removed?

Not a chance; His Eminence’s comments have been widely reported and are irretrievably part of the public record. Beyond that, let’s be honest, CMTV isn’t that influential.

In all likelihood, the video was removed because the operation’s “quasi-internal menace” (mentioned in my post on Saturday) decided that doing so is more palatable than manning up and admitting to his mistakes.

How so?

Apparently he came to realize that the chickens that he hatched earlier this year when he penned the infamous “CMTV Manifesto” (the same that he subsequently managed to compel Michael Voris to adopt) bashing so-called “traditionalists” like Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt and John Vennari by name (for the high crime of directly addressing the pope’s assaults against our Holy Catholic faith) had come home to roost thanks to that video, and those chickens were backing him into a corner.

You see, in order to be consistent, the menace who tells Michael what he can report (not to mention who his friends are) would have to insist that Cardinal Burke himself be branded a “spiritual pornographer,” and therefore CMTV would have no choice but to advise ordinary Catholics to avoid reading Cardinal Burke in order to protect their faith.

Well, that wouldn’t do, of course. Cardinal Burke doesn’t deserve such calumnous treatment as this.

What to do then?

Delete the video, embrace the hypocrisy, and hope for the best!

And just to make sure everyone knows how high the road upon which CMTV travels (read, in order to confirm the sheer magnanimity of the menace in his own mind) make sure Michael issues a new statement strictly condemning any commentary “denigrating the Vicar of Christ;” you know, like the entirely factual comments made by Cardinal Burke.

Oh well, the CMTV brain trust has every right to morph their entire operation into a circus act that no one can take seriously if they so choose, but I for one think it’s a damned shame to witness what was once a hard hitting defender of the Catholic faith; one that put truth before everything else, being castrated by thousands of paper cuts (green paper, that is).

It could be that true defender of the Faith once again, but in order for this to happen the resident menace would have to dig deep in order to find the wherewithal to apologize to Michael (and others) for having been such a tremendous horse’s ass by, among other things, presuming to tie strings to his support of CMTV. He would then perhaps find it in his heart to willingly take on the only role he is truly qualified to play in the operation; not that of content writer or “executive producer,” but of check writer alone. PERIOD.

Michael, having been duly relieved of said strings, might just decide to step up at long last to issue the apology that he still owes a number of good people; the same that I called on him to extend in a video that I made last March; a video that, for the record, will not be deleted.

Introducing the “God of surprises”

20. October, 2014Blog Post20 comments

Last Monday, just before the the now infamous Relatio Post Disceptationem was detonated, Pope Francis gave a homily (just by coincidence, don’t you know) about our God being a “God of surprises.”

Matters of timing aside, this isn’t exactly a new theme for Pope Francis.

In his homily of January 20, 2014, one month to the day before Cardinal Kasper was to deliver his reflections at the Extraordinary Consistory in Rome in preparation for the Extraordinary Synod just concluded, the pope had this to say as reported in L’Osservatore Romano:

Pope Francis noted that the two readings “speak to us about about the disposition we should have in the presence of the word of God”; i.e.,“docility”. “Docile to the word of God. The word of God is living. And therefore it comes and says what it wants to say: not what I expect it to say or what I hope it will say or what I want it to say”. The word of God “is free” and it comes as “a surprise, since our God is the God of surprises: he comes and always does new things. He is newness. The Gospel is newness. Revelation is newness.”

In Evangelii Gaudium, the 50,000+ word tome that Cardinal Burke presumably still hasn’t “quite figured out exactly how to describe,” Pope Francis hammered home just how surprising God can be:

He is for ever young and a constant source of newness. The Church never fails to be amazed at “the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God” … . The real newness is the newness which God himself mysteriously brings about and inspires, provokes, guides and accompanies in a thousand ways … At the same time, today’s vast and rapid cultural changes demand that we constantly seek ways of expressing unchanging truths in a language which brings out their abiding newness.

Indeed, so surprising is this God of… ahem… “ours,” that the word “new” appears in Evangelii Gaudium some 200 times! I highly recommend, for those of you who can stomach it, to reread the document with the Synod’s scandalous Midterm Report in mind.

Clearly, the nonsense found in the Relatio is in perfect keeping with the modernist mindset of the current  pope.

Come to think of it, isn’t amazing just how often this “God of surprises” tends to share Pope Francis’ ideas and opinions?

God of surprises