Just a small note on the SSPX marriages matter

It's a half measure

The real thing to wait for is to see what Rome will say about the marriages that were "contracted" prior to this grant.  Until there is clarification on that its pure show.

 

+JMJ+


 

LMS and Fr. Murray on the Rigid Trad Fiasco

There are days I wonder what exactly he was trying to accomplish with such magnanimous humility

"It is very interesting that the Pope should say, one day, that Tradition is a unhealthy fashion which has swept overly impressionable young people off their feet. And then, a few months later, after
further reflection, that Tradition is a refusal to follow fashion, a refusal to adapt to the times, a refusal to receive impressions from outside.

Could it in some way be both? Young traddies fail to have the right principles, so they are swept up by a fashion, and they acquire the wrong principles, which they then stick to in an unreasonable way. This diagnosis is just about possible for one person, who undergoes a surprising change of personality halfway through the process, but it couldn't work for as an explanation of a whole movement. The idea, after all, is to explain traditionalism in terms of a particular character trait which traddies have. Is that trait the trait of being impervious to fashion, or being too open to it? It really can't be both.

When one meets this kind of incoherent account of a person't personality, it is an indication that the person giving the explanation hasn't grasped something. If your explanation of why Napoleon invaded Russia is psychologically incompatible with your explanation of why he signed a Concordat with the Church, then you need a new one.

What is it that Pope Francis can't understand? I am sure it would help him in his 'digging' if he actually met some young traditionalists, spent some time with them, and listened to them. As far as I know he has never done this. What might he discover?

He might discover that young Catholics who find out about the recent history of the Church, and of the liturgy, frequently have the impression that they have discovered something rather exciting, something rather glorious, which has been hitherto hidden from them. This is not about succumbing to a fashion, and it is still less about refusing to move with the times. It is an authentic, personal response to newly available information, and a newly discovered liturgical experience. "

Read the rest from Dr. Shaw HERE



"As regards Pope Francis’ statement that “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error,” this notion is something that has been widely discussed and, in some ways, already put into effect (e.g., the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal and the new accurate translation of it into English) precisely because, as Pope Francis told Fr. Spadaro “Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are.”

The reform of the reform is an effort both to implement the reforms of the Mass that the Conciliar Fathers voted for when they approved Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, as needed, to undo the innovations and accretions they never dreamed of, and that were introduced into the Roman Missal or became standard practice with the new Missal.

Those who love the EF Mass are serious, sane Catholics who seek God in the beauty of sublime worship. They deserve a sympathetic hearing from their shepherds. "

Read the rest of Fr. Murray HERE

LMS: On causing scandal and reporting scandal

After all the complaning and frustration over what Pope Francis said or continues to say, there are so few level heads out there, and so many panic'd souls. Joseph Shaw from the LMS is part of the few, and I think provides clarity for rash bloggers and ear tinglers out there.

------------------------------

This is not the kind of blog which goes through people's bins - metaphorically speaking - looking for scandalous accusations to make against priests, bishops, and prominent lay Catholics. Nevertheless, I do from time to time talk about events which I would rather had not happened. Events which shed a poor light on the Church, which reveal problems. I do this because persistently to ignore the things which are causing pain, sometimes great spiritual suffering, to my fellow Catholics, where these are issues on which I would be expected to take an interest or have some light to shed, would be to a failure of charity.

That's right, a failure of charity.

Here is a parallel. Suppose that you know that a child, or indeed an adult, X, has suffered emotional or physical abuse at the hands of person Y. You meet X and say nothing about Y. Y comes into the room, you greet him warmly, show him respect and deference, shake his hand, smile, and so on. He goes off again, leaving you with X, and you say nothing about it. Or, you praise Y in X's presence, you talk about all his good qualities, you say loudly how lucky we all are to have Y among us.

Have you acted with charity? No.

This is the behaviour, of which the Church has seen far too much, of complicity. It is not just a matter of taking part in a cover-up, though that might be part of it. I want to focus on the effect on the victim. What you are saying, by implication, to the victim, is: I do not take your suffering seriously; I do not want to hear about it; your hurt and anger have no place in polite society; you, the victim, should deny your own feelings, if possible even to yourself.

These people who fall among thieves - how inconvenient they are! How embarassing! The only thing to do is to pass by on the other side. To stop would be an implicit criticism of the thieves, and that wouldn't be right.

Read the rest HERE

Athanasius Contra Mundum Interview with Fr. Ioannes Petrus

This was such an excellent talk!

I wanted to just provide the link and a short description so you too can take in this talk.

"Today Fr. Ioannes Petrus re-joins us for a wide-ranging interview which is perhaps the first one I did not script with pre-planned questions. We discuss voting, the trajectory of government in the West, the current Holy Father, the threat of Islam, Immigration and how Christians should respond to the crisis of our times."

He also touches on Savonarola and even defends the Borgias to a point.

Click HERE for the link

Francis: Our Father's merciful invitation involves correction

"Dear Brothers and Sisters,

 In these weekly catecheses inspired by the present Holy Year of Divine Mercy, we have often reflected on God’s fatherly love and forgiveness. The Prophets present this love also as involving correction, a summons to conversion and the renewal of the Covenant. Every parent knows the challenge of helping children to grow in freedom and responsibility. In the Scriptures, God expresses his dismay at the rejection of his love, as seen in the disobedience and sin of his children. If he chastizes his people, it is to move them to repentance and conversion. In his mercy, he asks them to turn back to him with all their hearts and to receive a righteousness that is itself his gift. God is pleased, Isaiah tells us, not by ritual sacrifice but by rejecting evil and practicing justice. Though our sins be like scarlet, he will make them white as snow. May all of us be open, during this year of grace, to our heavenly Father’s merciful invitation to come back to him and to experience this miracle of his love and forgiveness."

The page can be found HERE

Pray for the Holy Father


I also find the lack of good will and prudence toward "correcting" the Holy Father frustrating (like the people calling themselves originalists on the constitution ignoring de Vattel on the natural born clause and supporting Cruz, the demigod). So, I give you St. Pius X


"But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. “For the Lord is not in the earthquake” (III Kings xix., II) — it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity… This charity, “patient and kind” (1. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. “We are reviled,” thus did St. Paul protest, “and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat” (1. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill-advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it."

Pio X, P.P. - "E SUPREMI" 1903

Solzehnitsyn: Be careful with false calls for social justice

“For me and my friends, for people who think the way I do over there, for all ordinary Soviet citizens, America evokes a mixture of admiration and compassion...You're a country of the future, a young country, with yet untapped possibilities, enormous territory, great breadth of spirit, generosity, magnanimity. But these qualities--strength, generosity, and magnanimity--are usually combined in a man and even in a whole country with trustfulness. And this has already done you a disservice several times.

I would like to call upon America to be more careful with its trust to prevent those pundits who are attempting to establish fine degrees of justice and even finer legal shades of equality (some because of their distorted outlook, others because of short-sightedness, still others out of self-interest)to prevent them from using the struggle for peace and social justice to lead you down a false road. They are trying to weaken you; they are trying to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat -- one which has never before been seen in the history or the world. Not only in the history of the country, but in the history of the world."




Just a reminder that a Catholic cannot be a Socialist. Need more?  Click HERE

And the Holy Father is in Mexico and a young lady sang him the Ave at the Hospital.  Wonderful!

The Twitterverse: OnePeterFive v. Patheos and Matt Fradd makes a Franciscan joke

I didnt know there was such bad blood between 1Peter5 and Patheos Catholic.  For that matter I didnt know Patheos Catholic still existed (rimshot, i know I'm a funny guy)



But anyways there is a dust up between the two with accusations, name calling and general wasting of time going on.  Why is Skojac taking this seriously so as to continually reply?  I will leave that to you to consider why. After all nothing good comes from Patheos (but Patheos is no Galilee).

The only ofrense is that I didn't think @PatheosCatholic could get any less Catholic. Congrats on a new low. https://t.co/MCfGX5aOgH

— Steve Skojec (@SteveSkojec) November 25, 2015

@SteveSkojec You're not Catholic, which explains why you run a heretical publication. @PatheosCatholic @roddreher

— Artur Rosman (@CosmosTheInLost) November 25, 2015

Oh and Matt Fradd had a funny tweet:

Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary use words to correct those who misattribute theologically erroneous quotes to St Francis.

— Matt Fradd (@mattfradd) November 23, 2015

h/t to Badger Catholic twitter feed for the Matt Fradd quote

Distributist Brett Fawcett: Americans- Only Pope Francis Can Save You From Socialism

I thought this was interesting and wanted to share.  I dont agree with everything he says but he does a good job explaining a few things

Worth the watch:

+JMJ+

Just one question

How quickly will they translate the Moto Proprios into various languages?

The midway report came out fast during last years synod... Summorum took forever...

My guess, in his mercy we will receive this within the month...

One for the road

The Panic Factor

So the encyclical comes out Thursday…. PANIC!

Wait, no, don’t do such. With all the hoopla about this encyclical it seems the only thing that is going to happen is misunderstanding of the teaching office from Republicans and Democrats alike.  Encyclicals are part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.  Therefore, anything written in any non-extraordinary magisterial document is dependent on being in line with the previous teachings of the church.  Novelties that are listed in an encyclical, or in a council for that matter, carry with it little to no binding authority specifically because the faith is that which was once and will forever be held. So then you hear people freaking out today just remember that the ordinary Magisterium is in play here. 

As I have stated before my take on global warming is just as novel as any goofball on the radio or TV.  And if there is any weather weirding it is ultimately true that we as people (and even more, that we as luke-warm Catholics) cause evil in this world. Our fall dragged the world into disorder.

Having said that, just breathe today and be ready to answer the questions with a willing desire to teach the perimeters of the Ordinary Magisterium.

My old video on what authority papal encyclicals hold

The World Promises You Comfort...

As we commemorate the election of +Francis P.P. to the Chair of Peter, let us pray for him always and ask God for His Mercy and Grace!

+JMJ+

Cardinal Bertone in the Spotlight: On his scandals, Benedict, Francis and terrorism

Cardinal Bertone in the Spotlight

+Bertone and +Francis P.P.

The following excerpts are taken from an article published yesterday on the Huffington Post.  I think it gives a little insight into the Cardinal, his “scandals” and the Pope.  Read the whole of it HERE

Your Eminence, why is everybody out to get you?

Well... they say there are two motives. The first is because I was nominated as secretary of state without going through the Vatican’s channels of diplomacy.

Ratzinger’s papacy was extremely different from that of his predecessor.

Of course. But it developed in relation to that of his predecessor. Pope John Paul II thought very highly of Cardinal Ratzinger and led the church with his permanent and continual support, not just on a doctrinal and intellectual level but also, regarding certain aspects, in accordance with his vision of administration. There was, therefore, continuity between the two popes.

In other words, Pope Benedict’s was a sort of unfinished papacy.

On the contrary. It was a courageous papacy. Before every trip journalists would write that he wouldn’t be able do it. They would predict insufficient, substandard results and flops. But I think about the trips to Turkey and England that I made with him, to World Youth Day in his native Cologne when he led more than a million youths in silent prayer before the Body of Christ.

How is your relationship with Pope Francis?

Extremely positive, very wonderful. He kept me on as secretary of state for seven months filled with audiences and tickets, notes, telephone calls... By now everybody knows he has a habit of picking up the phone and calling: I need this, look for this, see if this candidate is qualified. It was a constant and warm consultation.

So it’s not a 25,000-foot penthouse.

Not at all, you’ve seen so yourself. I guarantee that the rooms are much smaller than those in some of the Vatican’s other buildings. The pope was informed about everything, even the small secretary’s office. He said to me, “It’s perfectly fine and you are entitled to it, seeing as you need to write your memoirs, given you have been witness to three papacies...”

Are you worried about the threats coming in from the Middle East?

Listen, this is not the first time the church has been threatened. Or even the pope. Just recall the attacks on Paolo VI in Manila and on John Paul II here in St. Peter’s Square. Of course, now these threats are more imminent, as well as more unpredictable in terms of whether they will be carried out.

Pope Francis’s position on the excesses of satire against religion after the attacks in Paris was surprising.

Pope Francis rightly reaffirmed the necessity of a limit which will not offend religious sentiments, which are the most deeply felt sentiments in every individual.

Even at the cost of sacrificing freedom of expression?

This is a fundamental right, unquestionable in free and democratic societies. I am talking about a code of conduct. But also of strongly condemning violence, above all violence ascribed to religion.

Do you fear for the pope’s safety?

I am afraid, but also confident in the precautions we have taken. Besides, the pope has said that the Vatican is watched over by the Archangel Michael, and since angels and archangels are recognized by many religions, including Islam, there cannot be greater protection than that….

+JMJ+

h/t Matthew Olson /

If Pope Francis is a communist then what of St. Basil the Great?

The more I hear people call the Holy Father a commie the more I was wondering if such people know anything about the church.  When +Francis P.P. says he is not a communist and that people would be surprised if they read the early fathers he is not joking:

+JMJ+

A Few Thoughts on the Coming Climate Change Encyclical

Look, I agree I'm not exactly giddy to see the day this thing is promulgated.  When the news patrols began their freakout coverage a week or so back I was looking for cover (Which reminds me of this:)

But with some time to breath, I am beginning to wonder if we are overreaching slightly.

For instance, I don't have an issue with the prospect of climate change whether it is natural or even man made.  There is plenty of precedence for climate change in the Earths history, most recently there was what some call a "little ice-age" from the 1700's to the 1800's (an era lacking the influence of industrial interference). Yet could there be a real effect of spewing chemicals in the air in large amounts over a short time?  I think its possible, though considering that the atmosphere is so immensely large I am not as concerned as others, plus God created the atmosphere knowing our craziness so... But even having said that I think we can because quite protestant in thinking that God will save us regardless of our actions (including pollution). 

I do hope that the encyclical will touch on the above, but primarily I hope the Holy Father will take the time to address how our actions (as in sin) effect our world.  Terry over at Abby-Roads reminded me of La Sallette and how Our Lady made it clear to the children that the famine was a result of sin.  So too it wouldn't surprise me if crazy whether is a result mostly of our sins.  Consider how St. John Vianny, during his time at Ars, experienced no great weather events outside of basic, needed weather required for any land.  Yet when he died the weather went back to violent, but relatively normal events.

Our sin effects all things, a quick read of Genesis tells us this.

Having said this, I would also ask people to be calm.  We often hear the idea that such and such a person cant remember such a bad weather time in their life, yet all they had to do was step a few years back and BOOM! They were saying the same thing.  Our memory is bad, and everything is a a moment of disaster.  So too our recording of temperatures and events is very limited.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT!!!

I am seeing a real issue developing whereby people are pitting Cardinal Burke against the Holy Father.  Stop this!! Cardinal Burke is his own man, and he can speak for himself and he is.  Let us not turn this situation into one likened unto Pope Alexander VI and Pope Julius II.  It is of great sadness to me that in order to hoist himself up as important, Julius had to slander Alexander so much that today ignorant Catholic apologists speak ill of Alexander without any knowledge of his life and reign.

Cardinal Burke does seem to enjoy having the freedom outside the curia at this point to speak his mind when called upon. He is making waves with his interviews and making people in the irreligious sphere awkward and afraid so they feel like they need to shield themselves and so they distort the Holy Father as needed.

RELAX, as Aaron Rodgers would say.

Pope Francis against common Eucharistic celebrations with Protestants

Francis admonished for ad limina visit Swiss bishops: not blur difference between priests and laity!

 Vatican City (kath.net/KAP/red) Francis Pope has spoken out against a common celebration of the Eucharist by Catholics and Protestants. "If we have to hide our Eucharistic faith under the pretext of a certain accommodation by, then we take our own treasure neither nor our interlocutor seriously enough," he said on Monday in front of the Swiss bishops at the Vatican. In ecumenical dialogue, the bishops should make sure that the believers of all faiths could live their faith "unambiguous and free of confusion" and "without the differences at the expense of truth wegzuretuschieren".

At the same time, the Pope, the Swiss bishops called on the difference between priests and laity not to blur. It is good to acknowledge the dedication of the laity and support, but this must always be "in clear respect for the difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood." The bishops would have their followers the importance of the truths of faith for the liturgical, parochial, family and social life convey. For this purpose, they would have their employees select "carefully". In addition, the Pope warned against over-reliance of the Catholic Church in Switzerland by state institutions. If the church avoided to depend on organizations "that could impose through economic means a style of life, the little Christ" have to do that it would "make the gospel more visible" in their structures He called for further clarification of the ratio to between church and state.

Read the Rest HERE

h/t Matthew Olson

Headline: Is Pope Francis Backpedaling on Gays?

From the mindless chatterbox arena comes the following:

Is Pope Francis Backpedaling on Gays?  

The Vatican’s cheery-sounding ‘complementarity’ symposium’ is really an attack on sex outside of marriage—gay sex, single sex, divorced sex, and all 50 shades of grey in between. Pope Francis is not Jesus Christ. Or even Martin Luther. He may well transform the Catholic Church, and has already gained unprecedented popularity as the reformer we’ve all been waiting for. But as events this week confirm, he is not omnipotent, and does not intend to change fundamental Catholic doctrine—if he even could. The event in question is “The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium,” an interreligious symposium presented by some of the Vatican’s most conservative voices. To understand the significance of Pope Francis’s remarks at this bizarre event, it’s necessary to back up a bit. You may have noticed that roughly 100 percent of higher animals reproduce sexually, requiring a male and female partner to do so. This is the core of “complementarity,” and it would not seem to require an international colloquium to explain. Complementarity as conservative Catholics use the term, however, is more than biology. It stands for the proposition that the biological basis of procreation should also be the sole organizing principle of society. Only mating pairs constitute a family, and any configuration that is not a mating pair—divorced people, gay people, single people—are not to be legitimized. Otherwise, society will collapse. I am not exaggerating this position. Complementarity also means, of course, than men and women are fundamentally different. In an earlier era, this was obvious. Men rule, women serve; men fight, women nurture. Today’s complementarians have to be more subtle—Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus—but the basic principle remains. Just like you need a sperm and an egg to make a baby, so you need a boy and a girl to create a harmonious pair. The idea of complementarity is an essential part of Natural Law, the Catholic Church’s quasi-secular-but-not-really philosophy that everything in the world has its “natural” role, which is good, and its “unnatural” perversions, which are bad. “Complementarity,” like “family values,” “religious liberty,” and “traditional marriage” is a term defined by what it opposes—non-procreative sex. Sex is not for fun; sex is for procreation. Food is not for fun; food is for nourishment. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas, the most important Catholic Natural Law thinker, called any “misuse” of sensual pleasures luxuria—not just luxury in the contemporary sense, but decadent luxury, pleasure beyond purpose. Evil. All of this matters, of course, because the Catholic Church is a multi-billion dollar international organization with 1.2 billion adherents (40 percent from Latin America, like Pope Francis). The Economist has calculated that it spends $170 billion annually in the United States alone. A great deal of that money goes to imposing its view of Natural Law on the rest of us, spending billions to restrict abortion and contraception, and fight any recognition of same-sex (“unnatural”) couples. Now, wasn’t Pope Francis going to change all that? No. Never. It was revolutionary when Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay people. But it was revolutionary in a specific, limited way. What he meant was that he personally, and by extension all Christians, should not be judgmental. The Church should welcome everyone— gays, divorcees, criminals—because that is what Christ did. And, who knows, eventually they will straighten out. I’m being a bit dismissive here, but this really is a significant evolution. I know many gay people who were thrown out of their churches, and those of us who were around in the 1980s remember how Cardinal John O’Connor and others blamed gays for AIDS and refused to help New Yorkers dying from the plague. But an evolution in tone is not a change in doctrine. Essentially, Pope Francis is urging Christians to “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” Which brings us back to this week’s colloquium, presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—originally known (until 1908) as the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.” Yes, that Inquisition. The CDF has, for five centuries, been a bastion of Catholic conservatism, and today is no exception. It was headed for 20 years by Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who produced such gems as labeling gay people “intrinsically disordered.” Now its prefect is Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who led the opposition to any softening of the church’s stance against divorcees at last month’s synod of bishops, and who has gone after American nuns for being too feminist and spending too much time fighting poverty instead of opposing gay marriage. And let’s not even talk about gay people. So, while the Colloquium is presented as a neutral, and interreligious, conference on the beauty of traditional marriage, its significance is anything but anodyne. Beyond the snappy website and mission to “examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman, in order to support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society,” its real-world impact would be to deny secular legal status to anyone who does not fit is conception of “complementarity.” Just look at the list of speakers, a who’s who of theological conservatives from a breadth of Western religious traditions. There’s Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, which recently decided that transgender people don’t exist, and which expelled a church whose minister said he no longer believes homosexuality to be a sin—after his own son came out as gay. There’s Nigerian Anglican Primate Nicholas Okoh, who called the ‘homosexual agenda’ an “evil wind blowing across the Western world,” and who supports Nigeria’s vicious new anti-gay laws. And of course there’s megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who has strenuously denied helping to bring about Uganda’s anti-gay law, but whose fingerprints are all over it. As in Jerusalem, where opposition to a gay pride march united Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim conservatives, “complementarity” has the power to bring people together. But don’t be misled. “Complementarity,” like “family values,” “religious liberty,” and “traditional marriage” is a term defined by what it opposes—non-procreative sex, same-sex unions, contraception, and usually (though not always) feminism. Where is Pope Francis in all of this? First, in his opening remarks yesterday, the pontiff towed a much more conservative line than his legion of new fans might expect. “The complementarity of man and woman,” he said: is a root of marriage and family… We now live in a culture of the temporary, in which more and more people are simply giving up on marriage as a public commitment. This revolution in manners and morals has often flown the flag of freedom, but in fact it has brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.” That is not exactly a message of liberation, and it confirms the speculation of some Vatican-watchers that the whole colloquium is a way for the pope to placate the conservative base that has begun (unthinkably) to rebel against him. But at the same time, the pope didn’t quite go all the way either. Notice he said that complementarity is “a root” of family, not “the root.” And he also said things like In these days, as you embark on a reflection on the beauty of complementarity between man and woman in marriage, I urge you to lift up yet another truth about marriage: that permanent commitment to solidarity, fidelity and fruitful love responds to the deepest longings of the human heart. I urge you to bear in mind especially the young people, who represent our future So when the pope says to a room of conservatives: Do not fall into the trap of being swayed by political notion. Family is an anthropological fact—a socially and culturally related fact. We cannot qualify it based on ideological notions or concepts important only at one time in history. We can’t think of conservative or progressive notions. Family is a family. What does he mean, exactly? Does he mean that the non-hetero-dyad family is a “political notion”? Or is he saying that family is an “anthropological fact,” i.e., one determined not by outdated “ideological notions” but by the lived realities of people as they are? Are conservative ideologues, as one of the Pope’s close advisors said earlier this year, “people who don’t understand reality”? Given the audience—a room full of conservatives—what does it mean to say “We can’t think of conservative or progressive notions”? We can only speculate as to the intentions behind these ambiguous words. Perhaps the Pope is telling his conservative base what they don’t want to hear, in the guise of telling them what they do. Perhaps, as one cardinal recently complained, the chaos is the plan. Or perhaps Pope Francis is not the pope of progressives’ fantasies after all. Even if he is, though, the pope may be infallible, but he is not omnipotent. As this week’s gathering shows, there are powerful conservative forces within the Catholic Church and beyond it. And for every encomium to the harmonious, procreative union of male and female, there is a trampling of everyone else.

It was on the daily beast and i am not linking to it... but it is a question that Fr. Z keeps putting out... when will they go after Francis for being Catholic?  Answer is never, they are delusional.

Pray for them!

Reading Francis through Pope St. John XXIII

As I was reading Roberto de Mattei's work "The Second Vatican Council: An Untold Story" I came across the following passage about John XXIII's attitude during his pontificate and it struck me just how similar it is to the current Franciscan Pontificate.  The allusions are obvious and I find them profound.  Do enjoy!

Buy the book here

“On February 9, 1963, John XXIII received in an audience lasting more than an hour and a half Father Roberto Tucci a Neapolitan Jesuit in his forties, who since 1959 had been editor of Civilta Cattolica. the pope appears to be decisively aligned against the curial culture, and when he remarks that curia members “have a petty, restricted mentality, because they have never been outside of Tome, outside of their village,” the allusion to Cardinal Ottaviani is evident. It is worth reproducing a long passage from Father Tucci’s diary, because it offers an assessment of the council made by John XXIII just a few months before his death:This conversation, recorded by Father Tucci in his diary, is revealing:

“He told me that Civilta Cattolica now seems to him to be on the right track, more so than in the past, although he did not specify what his criticisms were with regard to the past.

He spoke to me about his relations with the separated brethren, which he characterized as based on good will united with prudence and without illusions: nothing is gained by pressing them with talk of return, even though it is true that that is the only way; in the case of Fisher, who insists on speaking to him about reunion and unity, he gives him to understand that he does not quite follow, and then he changes the subject to imitation of Christ and similar topics, and the Anglican prelate goes away contented; it was the same yesterday with the Methodist prelate; with regard to the latter, he told me: “Yesterday they once again declared me a saint!”

As an example of the good fruits produced by his attitude of simplicity and kindness, he told me confidentially the news about the release from prison of the Metropolitan of the Ukrainians: Bishop Willebrands has gone to Russia to pick him up; he is expected din Rome by evening and he will reside for now in the monastery at Grottaferrata. He kept emphasizing that certain nationalistic attitudes, the type found among the Ukrainian bishops at the council, especially Bishop Bucko, can only cause annoyance; on the contrary, good relations with Khrushchev have brought about a more relaxed situation; he does not think that Khrushchev is as cynical as some say; he has his own serious internal difficulties and is animated by good intentions, even though he remains firmly committed to principles altogether opposed to ours. He told me that after the exchange of messages and other courtesies, an American journalist, who had an occasion to speak with Khrushchev at length, had brought him personal Christmas greetings from him and that he, by the same channel, had sent his own greetings back, adding to them a request to free the Metropolitan. The journalist had told about hearing from Khrushchev how he had been raised in a religious family, but later had become quite alienated from religion because he wanted to work for renewal in society, and he had seen that the “popes” [slang for clergy] in Russia were all slaves of the tsarist regime and of the rich. With regard to improving official relations with the Holy See, the Holy Father had sent a response that there were difficulties with that provided that the fundamental rights of the human person were recognized and hence also the right to religious liberty. From what I understood of the matter, Kennedy was not uninvolved; the Holly Father said that he understood his caution about not appearing to be too favorable to the Catholic Church, so as not to lose the support of the protestants; nevertheless members of his family had come to see the pope, etc.

As far as the council was concerned, he said that he was completely satisfied: the council had really got into its work only in recent weeks when it began to understand the implications of the September message and of his inaugural address on October 11. He complained however, about the fact that the Holy Office thought that it was in charge; he said that he had to set them straight; while praising the good dispositions of Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Parente and others, he said that they still had not understood that certain ways of acting could by no means meet with his approval. He strongly criticized Father Tromp, who thinks that he needs to teach the bishops and who expresses himself in a way that shows little respect for them; he also observed that unfortunately some eminent council fathers, because they once taught theology, think that they have to turn the council documents into manuals of theology; he reaffirmed that it is not a matter of settling doctrinal questions, since it does not seem to him that there are any disputed questions today that must solved in order to avoid grave harm to the faith of the Church. He forcefully critiqued all the intervention of Archbishop Vagnozzi, a fine young man, but one whose impertinence he had already noticed, since the former was out of place both because of his substance of what he said and above all because of his manner of saying it; he knew, moreover, that in this case it was not the archbishops won work [literally: it was not flour from his own sack], since it had been prepared for him.

 During the first session he had preferred not to intervene in the debates, so as to allow the fathers freedom to discuss and the opportunity to find the right path on their own; on the other hand, he, not having the necessary competence in the various matters, might be more of a disturbance than a help with any intervention of his own. The bishops needed to learn on their own – and they had done so.

As for his recent letter to the bishops, he appeared to be proud of having written the whole thing by himself; when asked whether he had meant to fault the liturgical movement when he talked about novae praedicationes [new sermons], etc., he said that was entirely absent from his mind; he was thinking about the good sisters who want to spread new forms of prayer, and about devotions to Our Lady of this place or that, which people were trying to extend to the whole Church, and the like. With regard to the curial culture, he noted that they have a petty, restricted mentality, because they have never been outside of Rome, outside of their ‘village’: they cannot manage to see Church matters in a truly universal perspective.

He then asked me whether I had any remarks or observations about the pope’s attitude, about the things people are saying. (He realizes that, even in my community, there will be some who do not agree with his approach!) I spoke then the need for abundant information on the council so as to help journalists, and so as not to reinforce the inferiority complex of Catholic publications, etc. He asked me whether Vallainc was doing well or not. I replied that it did not depend on him, but on Archbishop Felici. At that point he observed that Archbishop Felici is a really fine man, though he is somewhat limited in his thinking; he knows Latin very well and also Italian, but that is more or less all; it is true that he did not put himself in that position, since he had been proposed by Tardini without him knowing anything about it; he is obedient and a good worker. But the pope rescued him (by adding the five undersecretaries), and archbishop Felici knows this and is grateful. Understand the problem but doesn’t get into details. Just says that in order to contain the bad press it would be necessary for Manzini at L’Osservatore Romano to expose and give the lie to malicious interpretations and the like as soon as they occur; in that way everyone who is in error will fall into that category. The Pope has not spoken to Manzini.”

Three relatives of Pope Francis killed in accident in Argentina

A sad situation. HERE


The Holy Father needs our prayers now!

A couple interesting videos

I thought the first video was funny.  A light moment in the middle of serious discussion. The second video shows Cardinal Burke and other clerics processing into St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis for this years ICKSP ordinations:

Post by Salus Correia.

Post by Jorge Maciel.

He's all things to all men....

Because in the twitter age perception is reality:

Boston (CNN) -- In some ways, the "Pope Francis effect" doesn't seem very effective at all.
Despite the immense popularity the aged Argentine has won since his election last year, not a jot of doctrine has changed, nor has the Catholic Church swelled with American converts.
But there's more than one way to measure a pontiff's influence on his far-flung flock.
Start asking around -- here in Boston and beyond, Catholics and atheists alike -- and it's easy to find people eager to share how one man, in just one year, has changed their lives.
There's the gay man who finally feels welcome in his church.
The woman who weeps when headlines deliver good news at last.
The former priest who no longer clenches his fist during Mass.
The Latinos who waited forever for a Pope who speaks their language.
"I'm telling you, brother, if you focus on the numbers, you're missing the story," says the Rev. John Unni, a Boston pastor with an accent as thick as clam chowda.
"There's an energy, a feeling, a spirit here. It's like a healing balm."

Read the rest HERE

So in otherwords (even if not intended) hes all things to all men in a very superficial sense.

I try not to talk about the daily happenings of the Holy Father because who knows what is authentic or not.  All I will say is that no one is calling for people to burn material heretics on the street, but for crying out loud what does it profit these poor souls to become complacent and have their sentiments joyfully fullfilled if they lose their soul?  Bad teaching still leads souls to perdition, and ambiguosity confuses poor souls causing dispair... a by product of scandal (again whether intended or not.

Love the Holy Father, Pray for Him but I for one will continue to not work against him but wont play the worldly game of pandering

+JMJ+