28. July, 2014Blog Post50 comments
A priest looking for advice on how to advance the Church in a fast-paced world so often embroiled in conflict recently approached a well-placed cleric who had been a religious order priest and bishop for many years.
In response, the bishop answered, in part, by sharing the following true story:
A priest went as a missionary to an area where for years they had no priest, and evangelicals had arrived. He told me that he went to a woman who had been the teacher of the people and then the principle of the village school.
This lady sat him down and began to insult him forcefully saying, “You abandoned us, left us alone, and I, who in need of God’s Word, had to go to Protestant worship and I became Protestant.”
This young priest, who is meek, who is one who prays, when the woman finished her discourse, said, “Madam, just one word: forgiveness. Forgive us, forgive us. We abandoned the flock.”
The tone of the woman changed. However, she remained Protestant and the priest did not go into the argument of which was the true religion. In that moment, you could not do this. In the end, the lady began to smile and said, “Father, would you like some coffee?”
“Yes, let’s have a coffee,” he replied.
Afterwards, when the priest was about to leave, she said, “Stop here, Father. Come.”
And she led him into the bedroom, opened the closet and there was the image of Our Lady.
“You should know that I never abandoned her. I hid her because of the pastor, but she’s in the home,” the lady said.
It is a story which teaches how proximity, meekness brought about this woman’s reconciliation with the Church, because she felt abandoned by the Church.
And I asked a question of this priest that you should never ask, “And then, how did things turn out? How did things finish?”
But the priest corrected me, saying, “Oh, no, I did not ask anything; she continues to go to Protestant worship, but you can see that she is a woman who prays. She faces the Lord Jesus.” And it did not go beyond that. He did not invite her to return to the Catholic Church.
What is one to make of this “advice” and the bishop giving it? Three things can be said with certainty:
1) This bishop has a very twisted understanding of what it means to be reconciled with the Church. In his mind, a woman who hides her supposed devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary for fear of rebuke from a heretic “pastor,” and who is steadfast in “worshiping” in a heretical community, has undergone a “reconciliation with the Church” presumably because she set her anger aside long enough to have a cup of coffee with a Catholic priest.
2) This bishop has a deficient understanding of the Church’s mission. His inquisitor has been given to believe that priestly work is well done apart from inviting heretics to return to the Catholic Church and the sacraments. He furthermore has been given to believe that he can determine on his own that one outside the Church, with no possibility of being absolved from his or her sins “faces the Lord,” the presumption being that such a person is fine where they are; outside of the solitary Ark of Salvation.
3) This bishop is the current Bishop of Rome; a pope who has demonstrated time and time again an appalling lack of concern for even the most basic duties of his exalted office.
The story above was shared by Pope Francis during a Q&A session with the priests of Caserta that took place on July 26th; it’s just one of a number of things said that day by a Roman Pontiff whose prolific public discourse so often betrays his indifference to the Catholic faith. You may read the exchange in its fullness on the Vatican News website linked above, but be forewarned, it is a gut wrenching experience.
Clearly, the priests of Caserta would have done far better to email their questions to just about any commenter on this blog. (Small compliment, I know.)
25. July, 2014Blog Post150 comments
Does communion between the Church of Christ and the many thousands of heretical communities still exist? Pope John Paul II said it does, but what did the popes who preceded him have to say?
25. July, 2014Blog Post9 comments
Just less than a year after his elevation, Pope John Paul II wrote in Redemptor Hominis, the encyclical that set forth the principles that would guide his long pontificate:
You gotta hand it to the neo-modernists; at times they really are disarmingly honest.
These words of John Paul II constitute the foundation upon which Newchurch – the church-of-man that emerged after the Council – is constructed.
He is telling us plainly and without any apology whatsoever that Vatican Council II, in spite of its modest aims and its utter lack of intent to define doctrine or bind the Christian faithful, is precisely what the Captains of Newchurch have always said it is, a New Pentecost; i.e., it is the birth of a church “quite unknown previously.”
The divorce between the “awareness” of Newchurch and that of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is obvious to anyone who cares to make note of how modern day churchmen, including every pope who reigned during or after Vatican II, tend to view their mission relative to the mission given to the Church by Christ; their approach to ecumenism serving as a microscope that brings the disconnect into undeniably sharp focus.
I would suggest that all one has to do to find evidence pointing to just how novel (read: not Catholic) is the Newchurch approach to its mission is to take a look at the footnotes to Ut Unum Sint – the manifesto of modern day ecumaniacs.
Out of 162 references, one is hard pressed to find even a handful that predate the Second Vatican Council, and exactly ZERO that draw from the pre-conciliar popes’ teaching on the very topic at hand.
John Paul II obviously meant what he said he spoke of the “deep roots” and the “rich inheritance” that would inform his pontificate, but let no one be fooled; “they are unhealthy roots upon sheer rock,” (Sirach 40:15) giving rise to a barren tree that is destined to wither.
23. July, 2014Blog Post115 comments
First, read Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII followed by a reading of Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI. Take a moment to let these clear and precise presentations on the immutable faith of the Holy Catholic Church sink in…
Then, read Ut Unum Sint of John Paul II.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI (and a list of other popes too long to recite here) would have condemned the writing of John Paul II as incompatible with the doctrine of Holy Church.
The bottom line – a place the weak, the invincibly deceived and the diabolically disoriented dare not go – is that either John Paul II or his predecessors did not hold the Catholic faith. There is no via media here.
Ut Unum Sint, as is typical of modernist screed, is very lengthy. It is, after all, an exercise in novelty, which naturally requires copious explanation in order to convince the reader (and perhaps even the writer) of its Catholicity.
Be forewarned, it’s a very painful experience, but for those willing to suffer through it, I have reproduced here just a relatively small portion of Ut Unum Sint along with commentary that draws from the authentic faith.
Feeling brave? Jump in and offer it up.
That a martyr for the faith can come from among those who reject Holy Mother Church, and in so doing reject Christ her Head, is preposterous.
Another false premise: That one can offer their lives for the Kingdom of God and yet do so from outside of His Kingdom, the Holy Catholic Church.
In order to profess “the same Cross,” clearly one must also profess the one faith; i.e., the Holy Catholic faith.
Hurt feelings due to the events of previous centuries is not the issue; rather, it is the refusal of the heretic to embrace the doctrine of the faith; doctrine that is well known to all, without confusion, who wish to know it.
A “renewed willingness” to what? Apart from a willingness on the part of heretics to embrace in faith the fullness of Catholic doctrine, unity simply is not possible for such a person.
What is the “ecumenical venture”? We are about to find out…
OK, so you’re the pope. Will you tell “all Christians” how to “reach full unity” like your predecessors?
The duty is to persist in the unity that already exists in the Catholic Church. JPII writes as if it is a human goal to somehow manufacture unity when in fact it is a attribute of the Church divinely endowed.
That there may be one visible Church of God? Hello? There is. It’s the Catholic Church.
Unitatis Redintegratio states “they long for the one visible Church of God…” which can be read to say that it does presently exist and those outside long for it without knowing what it is.
JPII, however, writes here as if this one visible Church is as yet unrealized.
As JPII made clear in his inaugural encyclical, Remptor Hominis, the “deep roots” of the faith as far as he is concerned go all the way back to the Second Vatican Council. How about reading everything in context with the whole of tradition? That is the Catholic approach, and yet, for JPII, there is a new self-awareness in the Church; an awareness quite unknown previous to the Council. (ibid.)
Ambiguous though it is, this approaches the faith of the Church; namely, the dogma that says that the Catholic Church possesses unity as a fundamental characteristic. Why this should now lead to 20,000+ more words on the topic, none of which will urge those outside of the Church to enter, is a sure sign that we are about to be treated to the convoluted innovations of a dyed in the wool modernist.
True; unity is not a numeric concept. Therefore, one who desires unity must profess with the Catholic Church the one faith, partake of the same sacraments, under the authority of the visible head of the Church, the pope. This is the immutable teaching found in Satis Cognitum and Mortalium Animos, and yet this pope (a saint as we are told) treats this teaching as if it is passé.
The communion spoken of here exists in the Catholic Church alone; in such way that to break bonds with the Catholic Church is to break bonds with the Body of Christ and likewise the Father and the Spirit as they are inseparable.
In the words of Pope Leo XIII:
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation. (Satis Cognitum 5)
It sounds as if JPII imagines that “communion” (common union) is something other than persisting in unity with the Catholic Church. Indeed his, and every pontificate since, has preached in such way.
Read with the eyes of faith as developed in the pre-conciliar magisterium, this treatment is nonsensical. What is the challenge to the Catholic faithful as it pertains to unity? It is twofold: 1) To persist in the unity that exists in the Catholic Church alone, and 2) To invite those outside to enter.
What precisely are “ecclesial values” among the heretics? Presumably he is referring to those gifts properly belonging to the Catholic Church. (Scripture, baptism.)
What then is the “ecumenical question”? There is none other than this: When will the heretics and schismatics return to Rome. That’s it.
There is a fundamental and widespread error here: In truth, as it concerns the schismatics and the heretics, no communion (common union) still exists with the Church of Christ.
This is why it is so important to the ecumenical newchurch to put forth the innovation that says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. It opens the door to the falsehood that this “Church of Christ” is also present in some sense in the communities of the schismatics and heretics such that they still enjoy some ill-defined “communion” with this Church of Christ.
They do not.
And yet those informed by the teaching of the popes over the centuries before Vatican II know that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church; therefore, those who separate from her have not communion with the Church of Christ.
Rephrasing what JPII puts forth here according to the faith so clearly taught before Vatican II makes clear the unsustainability of this wholesale innovation:
“To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the Catholic Church is effectively present in them.”
Who could ever accept the ludicrous notion that the Catholic Church – the Body of Christ, this perfect society and solitary way of salvation – is “effectively present” in the communities of the heretics and schismatics?
Not one, single, solitary, well-formed Catholic cold ever embrace such a novelty as this. And yet, this is what we are being sold.
It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church do not, and cannot possibly, somehow take “parts” of the Church with them; the Church is one and indivisible.
It is one thing to make note of the “elements of sanctification and truth” found in such communities (e.g., Scripture, baptism, marriage); the same properly belonging to the Catholic Church and present in the heretical communities, not by legitimate right, but only by the misappropriation of said elements by those who dared to coopt them.
It is quite another to say that the Catholic Church is “effectively present” in them; a heresy to be certain.
At this, we have tortured ourselves enough for one day.
God help us.
21. July, 2014Blog Post31 comments
The diabolical disorientation of which Our Lady warned runs so deep that when it comes to Pope Francis people simply see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear; putting gestures in his public record and words in his mouth as happens to suit their fancy.
Consider, for example, the story widely reported last month about the pope stopping his motorcade while en route to Calabria (where he would excommunicate, or not, the Mafia) so he could greet a young disabled woman whose family was on the roadside with signs that read, “Please Pope stop here to see an angel who has been waiting for you,” and “Please come and bless little Roberta.”
L’Osservatore Romano ran a piece referenced on the Vatican News website which said:
Catholic News Agency reported on the event likewise, saying, “When the Pope saw their signs, he asked for his car to stop, and immediately went to greet and bless the people.”
The CNA story even included a video that I watched for the first time just today. Take a look.
What did you see?
I saw what looked like a famous person going out of his way to make a memorable moment for some adoring fans and not much else. A gesture of kindness, maybe, but I can’t say that I saw any “blessing.” Can you?
Substitute Bono, or Mick Jagger, or Dino Spumoni for the pope in this video and no one would be moved to say, “Who the hell does that man think he is blessing the people like that, the pope!”
I suppose one could conduct a frame-by-frame analysis (in fact, Catholic Answers may have already done so) to see if it is possible to detect the pope’s thumb tracing a small cross on the young woman’s forehead, but if it’s necessary to treat this video like the Zapruder film just to find evidence of a blessing, well, then, I think we have our answer.
And what are we to think of a pope who doesn’t bless God’s people?
Perhaps the pope was concerned that some of the people on that Southern Italian roadside were not Catholic and was politely “respecting the conscience of each” in withholding his blessing from them. Who knows?
In any event, let’s not kid one another, “Peter” didn’t bless those people that day; rather, Jorge simply said hello.
In spite of lasting but a minute, the incident in question is emblematic of this entire pontificate, such as it has been thus far: It’s not about Jorge taking on the Petrine Office; it’s about Peter giving way to Jorge.
That’s why the 53,000 word Evangelii Gaudium, wherein Pope Francis set forth the guiding principles that will inform his pontificate, reads so much like a personal diary.
The family of that young disabled woman was thrilled to encounter the pope, and I can’t blame them. It’s a moment they will never forget; one that may even lead to a more fervent faith among themselves and their extended family and friends.
Even so, one is hard pressed not to realize that what those people really wanted, and indeed truly deserved, was not delivered that day.
Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
21. July, 2014Blog Post45 comments
May Our Blessed Lord have mercy on his soul.
While none of us can say with absolute certainty whether or not Pope Francis had privately encouraged his personal friend of many years to renounce his heresy and to enter the one true Church, what we do know would suggest that this is highly unlikely.
Allowing for the remote possibility that he did, it would seem that upon death Mr. Palmer was filled with either one of two convictions:
- I should have listened to Pope Francis and entered the Holy Catholic Church, my Mother and Teacher to whom the sacraments have been entrusted.
- I never should have listened to Pope Francis.
In any case, a man has died outside of the one true Church; without ever having had the benefit of confession and the infinite grace of the Most Holy Eucharist, and that my friends is a tragedy.
There are millions upon millions of people, also outside the Church, who have never had a private conversation with the pope. Tell me, is there anything in the Holy Father’s public discourse that might cause them to contemplate the necessity of entering the Holy Catholic Church? Anything?
The sudden death of Tony Palmer lends perspective to just how much is at stake when it comes to the deeply troubling words and deeds of the current pope. Countless souls are at stake, and yet there are those in the Catholic media who refuse to raise their voice beyond a veritable shoulder shrug.
If indeed the Holy Father’s private conversations with Tony Palmer mirrored his public discourse as it relates to the need of conversion, how terrible it must be for the pope to contemplate the disservice he did to his friend and “brother bishop” now that he has passed.
On the other hand, one wonders if this pope’s manner of thinking is so entirely disconnected from the mind of the Church that he is even capable of such regret.
18. July, 2014Blog Post115 comments
I know, it sounds like I’ve lost my ever lovin’ mind and indeed someone has, but don’t blame me; I’m just one of the sheep blissfully following the path chosen by his chief shepherd.
You see, back in February, Pope Francis made a humble little video greeting for attendees of the Kenneth Copeland Ministries Conference (KCMC), a gathering of evangelical heretics from all over the world.
The video was made at the suggestion of Tony Palmer, the founder of the Ark Community, which describes itself as an “an internet-based, Inter-denominational Christian Convergent Community, drawing our spirituality from the ‘Early Church.’”
Ark is a member of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches which “attempts to maintain and practice the faith as given by the Apostles through the mother Church of the worldwide Anglican family – the Church of England.” (We’ll revisit this “mother Church” thing in a moment.)
In his greeting to the KCMC, in addition to asking the heretics for their blessing, Pope Francis called Tony Palmer, who was recording the video at the Vatican with his iPhone, “my brother bishop.”
Last week, Tony’s “mother Church,” the Church of England, voted in favor of so-called “female bishops.”
“Women will be bishops like all other bishops with no distinction at all,” said Justin Welby, the leader of the Church of England.
OK, so you do the math; it’s not terribly complicated:
Given that Tony Palmer is the Holy Father’s “brother bishop,” when the Church of England gives Tony a “sister bishop,” Pope Francis will get one too!
Isn’t that awesome?
Pope Francis has made it exceedingly clear, as the papal defenders of all things ludicrous love to remind us, that he is “a son of the Church.”
This is good to know, but it raises some obvious questions in light of the present discussion:
Who precisely does Jorge Bergoglio understand to be his mother Church? Does he imagine her to be the same one claimed by his “brother bishop,” Tony?
This post is the height of ridiculous. I know it, and that’s the point:
Ridiculous is exactly where one ends up by following the uncontested words of the current pope to their logical conclusion.
And that, my friends, is a very serious problem.
The bottom line is this: Pope Francis and his stunning lack of concern for safeguarding the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine as summed up in Fr. Lombardi’s explanation of a “new genre of papal speech not concerned with precision,” is poison in the Church.
Some may wish to ignore the many scandalous things Pope Francis says and does on a near weekly basis; others may prefer to twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain them, but until his unspeakably irresponsible behavior is met head-on and publicly condemned, it will come back to haunt us again and again.
In truth, it isn’t primarily up to me, or Michael Matt or Chris Ferrara or John Vennari or anyone else in the media to set the record straight. Oh, everyone who claims to be Catholic has a solemn duty to do so, don’t get me wrong, but ultimately it is up to the bishops and the cardinals of Holy Church to speak up in defense of the truth for the good of souls.
Shhhhh… Do you hear that?
It’s dead silence.
And so we wait and pray and fast some more. In the meantime, let’s ask a few more questions.
What exactly is the difference between Tony Palmer, Justin Welby and Bishop Betty Boop?
The answer: Nothing. They’re all heretics in Halloween costumes who need to renounce their errors and return to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. Tony is no more a bishop than Justin who is no more a bishop than Betty.
All of which brings me to ask why so many Catholics are treating the Church of England’s decision to play make-believe-bishop with women like it’s such a big deal?
The big deal here is the way our pope treats heretics. Who cares if they decide to “ordain” puppies?
17. July, 2014Blog Post37 comments
At the outset of his prophetic ministry, Isaiah saw God seated upon a throne wearing a royal garment. Clearly, his vision was of none other than God made man; i.e., he saw the Risen Lord, Christ the King.
Furthermore, in seeing an altar, the place of sacrifice, he witnessed the Heavenly liturgy.
Isaiah was familiar with the Temple sacrifice in Jerusalem, a sacrifice that had to be repeated over and over again with each passing year. He knew, in other words, that the sacrifice offered on Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, the most solemn of holy days for the People Israel – had no ability to atone for the sins of man in any lasting sense; it could not truly cleanse.
As Isaiah wrote, the people were about to be exiled in Babylon rendering them unable to offer even this imperfect sacrifice, and yet Isaiah saw in his vision that a greater Sacrifice was coming; one so worthy that it takes place even in Heaven, and this Sacrifice is capable of taking away man’s iniquity.
Having witnessed the Risen Lord, the King of kings, God in the flesh, Isaiah knew of what he spoke when he would later say, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Isa 7:14).
He had seen the One of whom he wrote, “And they shall call him mighty king, wonder counselor, God with us” (Isa 9:6).
And he knew of Whom he wrote when he foretold of the Suffering Servant, the blameless One by whose stripes we are healed (Isa 53).
Indeed, St. John the Evangelist, whose Gospel is replete with affirmations of the divinity of Christ, confirms that Isaiah “saw His glory and spoke of Him” (cf John 12:41).
Continuing in Isaiah 6:
Know that God did not arbitrarily seal the ears and shut the eyes of His people; rather, it was the wickedness of the people themselves that had rendered them unable to hear and to see. This condition was of their own making, and so it was according to the demands of perfect justice.
In surveying the landscape in the Church in our day, we see much the same thing as nary a day goes by without one of our bishops, often even the Bishop of Rome, giving us very good reason to wonder if any of them have ears to hear or eyes to see the glory of Christ the King.
And we too might well ask as Isaiah did ask, How long, O Lord?
The answer, one shudders to admit, is ever the same:
Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land shall be left desolate.
This is a hard truth to accept, and yet we can be certain that the demands of justice are such that humanity will likely be brought to its collective knees before understanding returns to the hearts of God’s people, that they may be converted and healed.
Do I mean to suggest that the deaf and the blind of our day are in a bed of their own, personal making?
Not necessarily; for we know that the Lord Our God is a mighty and jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him. (cf Ex 20:5)
The Fathers of Vatican Council II, in conducting the affairs of that poisonous pastoral exercise that took place roughly three generations ago, treated Christ the King as a persona non grata; ignoring His Sovereign rights and speaking as though His truth is but one more opinion among many. The popes and the bishops in union with them have carried on similar fashion ever since.
As I wrote in the previous post, at the heart of the crisis in the Church today is the virtual dethronement of Jesus Christ and the near singular focus of our churchmen – most especially the pope – on the supposed glory of humankind.
No one knows precisely how or when the Lord will redress this terrible offense against Him, but one thing seems entirely certain, the status quo is unlikely to hold for much longer.
15. July, 2014Blog Post74 comments
Imagine, if you will, an international group of economic experts and other leaders assembled at the Vatican for a conference. The Holy Father, recognizing the importance of the topic, makes a personal appearance to address those in attendance, saying:
Anthropological reductionism causes man to lose his humanity; to become a tool of the system – a social system, an economic system – where imbalances are dominant.
When a man loses his humanity he becomes as a “piece of scrap” that one may discard when no longer useful. Why? Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is not the center. And when Christ is not in the center, there is another thing in the middle and man is at the service of this other thing. The idea then is to rescue man, in the sense of returning Our Lord Jesus Christ to the center: to the center of society, the center of thoughts, the focus of reflection. Place Christ once more at the center!
Thank you. Thank you for the help you give with your work, with your reflection to restore this unbalanced situation and to restore Christ, bring him back to the center of reflection and the center of life. He is the King of the universe! And this is not theology, not philosophy – it is human reality. With this reality we will move forward. Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you!
Just such a conference actually did take place at the Vatican on July 12, 2014, and the Holy Roman Pontiff did in fact address the assembly to set the tone for their discussion saying much the same thing, but with one major difference:
Pope Francis never pointed to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the place of primacy He must occupy in the affairs of men. Not even once! Rather, he pointed, as readers of this space may very well have expected, to man himself, the new god of the new church-of-man.
Following is a transcript of what Pope Francis really said. [Note: The text of this address is available in its fullness on the Holy See's website here. As of this writing, it is available only in Italian. A report from Zenit is also available. Thank you to Mark J. for pointing this out to me.]
When a man loses his humanity he becomes as a “piece of scrap” that one may discard when no longer useful. Why? Because the man is not the center. And when the man is not in the center, there is another thing in the middle and the man is at the service of this other thing. The idea then is to rescue man, in the sense of returning him to the center: to the center of society, the center of thoughts, the focus of reflection. Place man once more at the center.
Thank you. Thank you for the help you give with your work, with your reflection to restore this unbalanced situation and to restore man, bring him back to the center of reflection and the center of life. He is the king of the universe! And this is not theology, not philosophy – it is human reality. With this reality we will move forward. Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you!
I have written often of the church-of-man that emerged after Vatican II, with the conciliar text serving as the manifesto for the anthropocentric religion that supplanted the true Faith following the Council.
One may wonder how the vast majority of bishops at Vatican II, many of whom certainly had good intentions (e.g., men like Cardinal Ottoviani and Archbishop Lefebvre,) could ever place their vote in favor of such texts?
The answer is large part is that they were true sons of the Church whose esteem for the Petrine Office was such that they never imagined in a million years that any pope would ever allow this pastoral exercise to be leveraged in such way as to overshadow everything that preceded it. Much less did they ever imagine that the pope himself would ever willingly serve as an active agent in the conciliar takeover, dethroning Christ the King and replacing the adoration that is due to Him with a religion consumed with rendering false worship to an idol called “man.”
With this in mind, we must remember that the text of the Council, for all of its deficiencies, is not leading the Church in our day, the sacred hierarchy is. That is to say, the Church is being led by the person of the pope and the bishops in union with him.
Back in October, I wrote that all indications are that Pope Francis and the cardinals who elected him are quite convinced that the humanist takeover has finally reached critical mass, wherein both clergy and laity who prefer “the church of man” over the Church of Christ are now so comfortably in the majority that the time to set forth the humanist agenda without apology has arrived.
Can there be any doubt whatsoever that this is precisely where we find ourselves today?
Look, I’m as disturbed as anyone by the recent comments alleged to have been uttered by the pope about his disinterest in converting heretics and his thoughts on celibacy, but let’s not be distracted. At the heart of the crisis in the Church today is the virtual dethronement of Jesus Christ and the near singular focus of our churchmen – most especially the pope – on the supposed glory of humankind.
If for no other reason – and to be very frank, I can think of no other reason, not even one – we can be grateful for the pontificate of Pope Francis due to his willingness to make the choice that lies before us so crystal clear.
Yes, the days of pretense are indeed over, the picture is coming into increasingly stark focus, and for this we can be thankful. Make no mistake, however, this is a sword that cuts in two directions.
For each and every one of us, and most especially for those of you who have the blessed yet heavy burden of exercising the care of souls as members of the sacred hierarchy, the time of choosing is at hand:
Will you stand up in defense of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King and the Holy Catholic faith, or will you remain silent as souls are endangered by a pope who repeatedly relegates Our Blessed Lord and the authentic Faith to a place of virtual obscurity?
14. July, 2014Blog Post79 comments
According to Brian Stiller, Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance, Pope Francis told him directly:
“I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”
Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, has confirmed the veracity of Stiller’s report, by his deafening silence.
He also managed to confirm the twisted priorities of the current regime.
Consider the swiftness with which Fr. Lombardi went about clarifying (if you can call it that) the latest Eugenio Scalfari interview of Pope Francis. The topics that demanded such an immediate response concerned the number of pedophiles in the clergy and the Bishop of Rome’s attitude toward celibacy.
OK, I agree, these are pretty important matters for Catholics the world over, but I ask you:
What is more important than the mission that Jesus gave to His Church; a mission that absolutely concerns an interest in converting heretics to the Catholic faith?
Brian Stiller’s quote of Pope Francis has been lingering for five days now and it remains unaddressed.
The answer is simple: Pope Francis has no interest in converting Evangelicals, or anyone else for that matter, to Catholicism.
- Audio Sancto
- Catholic Family News
- Church Militant.TV
- Creative Minority Report
- Eponymous Flower Blog
- Fr. Jay Finelli
- Fr. Michael Rodriguez on YouTube
- Fr. Ray Blake's Blog
- Fr. Z
- John Salza Apologetics
- Kitchner Waterloo Traditional Catholic
- Mundabor's Blog
- New Sherwood: Jeff Culbreath
- Rorate Caeli
- Sandro Magister: Chiesa
- Society of St. Pius X
- The Remnant
- Unam Sanctam Catholicam
- Voice of Catholic Tradition Radio