Monday, July 29, 2013

Yes, I read it.

If the translation is accurate, I concede.

The man is a menace to the salvation of souls and we are in deep doodoo.

Update. Strike that. Having just read this, the subject of the post should read "Yes, I read them"

When I calm down, I'll write a post that addresses the reasons we all know why he should care and the skullduggery of ignoring the antics in the Novus Ordo which scandalizes, misleads the faithful and sometimes invalidates the Sacrifice while his focus is on abrogating TLM.

I am too disgusted and know I will regret saying what I am thinking at this moment.

Catch up with you later.

Love and prayers.


TTC said...

ps - my neck hurts!

aly said...

Mine too. Love and prayers.

Dymphna said...

I think I know where this going.

Anonymous said...

Is the cause of the crackdown from the “left” or the “right”?

According to the above Rorate Caeli report:

[T]he “internal dissidents” were led by an American member of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who was notable for his opposition and hostility to the any criticism of Vatican II.

According to a CNA/EWTN News report (

[T]he spokesman for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Father Alfonso Bruno, told CNA July 29 that … [i]n his estimation, the “problem is not the Holy Mass usus antiquior,” which he described as “only the tip of the iceberg.”

Fr. Bruno pointed to a “small group in power” within the religious congregation that is being influenced by Mother Francesca Perillo, who is “very close” with Lefebvrist groups. He is worried that Mother Perillo, who is in charge of those sisters who live in hermitages, and her followers could fall into “heresy and disobedience.”

Mother Perillo could not be reach for comment before publication time.

Rorate Caeli also says, “[S]ome of nuns under the spiritual care of the FFI are looking for priests to continue celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass for them after the August 11 ban comes into force.” Will they go over to the Society of St. Pius X?

Anonymous said...

Thank God that under Pope Francis the Church is heading in a Gospel-oriented, more life-giving and Christ-like direction. The Holy Spirit is at work. Now hopefully he'll clip the wings of Cardinal Burke, about whom someone recently said, "The principle objection to Burke's liturgical style is not that he is too concerned with aesthetics. It is that his aesthetic intuition is terrible: kitschy, gaudy, overwrought, clumsy and talentless. His masses are like watching Antony and Cleopatra performed by The Muppets." In the words of Pope Francis, "The carnival is over." Thank God.

TTC said...

The pope never said the Carnival is over. That was a lie.

There is nothing Christ like about heresies that will lead souls into hell but you will enjoy the ride there.

TTC said...

Thanks for the update on the sedevacanist dames.

I will catch up to stories later. I thin Fr Z has an insightful post on the FFI situation.

Beefy Levinson said...

I understand what Father Z said about this: that's a narrow ruling, that it applies to only one religious community, that it has to do with their internal problems, etc.

This is still a bad precedent. On paper, every priest is free to celebrate the TLM wherever and whenever he wants without the permission of his Ordinary. But I think we all know that in practice, bishops still exert de facto control over the Mass of the Ages. "So Father, I hear you wish to celebrate the TLM in your parish. That reminds me, the mental ward downtown needs a new full time chaplain... I'm just saying."

I fear many bishops and religious superiors will take this as a sign that they can make more incremental encroachments upon the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

susan said...

Hey anonymous 12:20...'loved' your anonymous quote about the great Cdnl. Burke. "...about whom someone recently said, "The principle objection to Burke's liturgical style is not that he is too concerned with aesthetics. It is that his aesthetic intuition is terrible: kitschy, gaudy, overwrought, clumsy and talentless. His masses are like watching Antony and Cleopatra performed by The Muppets."...what a load of happy-horse-pucky. True to form, the cowardly post as 'anonymous' and use make-believe, quotes (or perhaps it's another winning quote from your good buddy, the disgraced and disgraceful Roger Mahoney). Try makin' up something halfway plausable next time. And oh yeah, "plausable" means 'believable; credible'.

Beefy, you are spot-on.

And I think this is a plausable account of the reasons (2 posts)...a good, reliable website for news.

slim said...

Where's the part about sedevacantists? Just noticed there was a segment close to the Society. And nuns are 'dames'?

Oh, if the 'carnival is over,' nobody told the organizers of World Youth Day. Please pass on the news.

And why did the Holy Spirit wait 2000 years to start leading the Church to Christ-centeredness? Not sure how that works.

breathnach said...

Bishop Francis , upon his return from Brazil, placed a green tee shirt and a beach ball upon the altar at St. Mary Major. No wonder Cardinal Mahoney jumped for joy when Francis was elected.

St. Albert said...

Well, shucks. First of all, I'm puzzled and somewhat worried too. But, given an accurate and full translation, Francis did not say anything re: the SSA issue and gay activity that the Church has not taught for a long time. He even referred to the CCC as explaining precisely what the issues are. (I.e. love the sinner and hate the sin.)

I do think he may be (intentionally?) playing with fire vis a vis the Media, and I am sorry it seems to take a full-court press of Catholic bloggers to un-spin the media's take, and point out what he really said. (I've had to do this myself, just today). But maybe, hopefully, the entire exercise will serve to publicize the TRUTH of the Catholic position on Same-Sex-Attraction, versus what the MSM usually puts forth. Namely that the Catholic Church welcomes sinners (of any stripe) but calls us to sin no more.

Re: the FFI, I will heed Fr.Z's advise, for now, and take a wait-and-see attitude. His thoughts are plausible, IMHO.

All that said, I think the following is clear:

a) Francis was chosen by a conclave ostensibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

b) Whatever he was before, once he accepted election he received graces pertaining to his new office (as does any Pope). Pope Francis is literally not the same man as Cardinal Bergoglio.

c) No Pope remains in office any longer than God wishes.

d) Pope Francis is still in office.

e) To reject Pope Francis is to risk leaving the Church, and therefore to risk Hell itself. ("To whom shall we go?")

f) Therefore let us trust in God and his support for Holy Mother Church, and hang in there until God directs us otherwise. Remember that in Revelation, the "letters to the Churches" describe many ways that the Church can and will go wrong. Yet in all cases there is a remnant that remains faithful, and will be rewarded. Be that remnant.

g) "Jesus, I trust in You!"

Note that nothing in the above rant is aimed at anyone posting above. It is ONLY my thoughts. Intelligent and loving correction is welcome.

breathnach said...

St. Albert:

I appreciate your measured tone regarding Pope Francis. I don't believe anyone here has "rejected" the Pontiff.

However, "the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor" (cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit). Leo the Great.

The office is inviolate, the man may be inadequate. We await the full measure of the man, Francis. The worldly activities of all popes are open to vigorous scrutiny and criticism. The office of Peter and the Magisterium are sacrosanct.

Mike Hurcum said...

I find him so careless and incomplete in his words. Although we have the same kind of the then vatican 2 interpreting. He is also being very Jesuit, popping up with statements when you least expect them and are not ready to refute them.

Lynne said...

Here we go...

Pope suggests easing restriction on divorce

"Regarding communion for divorced Catholics who remarry without an annulment, Pope Francis said he would make pastoral response a high priority. He suggested the Orthodox Church as a model. Orthodox tradition allows up to three marriages, arguing that human frailty can prevent people from living up to Jesus' ideal of one marriage."

TTC said...

Three or four. The institution is cheap. Try it out and if you don't like it, find a couple of more floozies. Stretch your 80 grand over three households of children.

How absolutely disgraceful. Women are receptacles for semen to the man.

The spinmeisters must be having a hard time with this one.

susan said...

Our love to you, St. Albert J.

"St. Albert"...point taken on the loving and intelligent correction to a reasonable and measured comment. (note that one of the above was an ad hominem, unattributed screed against a truly good prince of the Church...some people beg to be taken behind the wood shed)

As to the kerfuffle around the BofR's off-the-hip comments on the plane, the point is they were open to SO MUCH misinterpretation and confusion (as is much of his 'teaching'). Why is it continually necessary to have weeks of clarification, explanation, and verbal apologetic gymnastics following every other ad-libbed homily or interview of the Vicar of Christ? (though note, he will not refer to himself by that title...nor Pope, nor Holy Father, nor etc....simply Bishop of Rome (he even signs his correspondence with that title because it's more ecumenical and fraternal. Another sign of the purposeful weakening of the Papacy). I literally find myself holding my breath when he speaks, and admit it, in your heart-of-hearts you do too.

With the SSA comments, there was plenty of room to see a ‘softening’ of the RCC’s stance for one who isn’t steeped in the Faith. Is there any member of Dignity, ‘Catholic’ New Ways Ministry, who wouldn’t think they were being directly addressed and affirmed by the Pope himself when he says, ““Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?...If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?" (the primacy of individual conscience over the duty to properly form a conscience according to Truth) He goes on to talk about not lobbying (they might not consider themselves ‘lobbyists’), but not one word about ‘objectively disordered orientation….that constitutes a severe trial (to be battled against), and to unite this cross “to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (CCC2358). I didn’t hear him say anything about the necessity for celibacy, the danger of mortal sin, the call to dying to self; all stuff you know if you’re steeped in the Faith, but I bet you dollars-to-donuts that the reporters on that plane, and the countless souls whose only catechesis will be what this Pope (a MSM favorite) teaches, and will be lost as a consequence (which sadly includes the majority of Catholics because they aren’t TAUGHT), had NO idea (and never will) of what the Faith clearly and unambiguously teaches. He had (has) a golden opportunity to teach; he chose to sound ‘nice’ (and quite frankly, much of what I hear from him sounds indistinguishable from what I’ve heard protestant ministers teach), leaving massive openings for misunderstanding and dissent.…a horrific choice for a Pope to make. He could have instead cleared it all up and shut it all down, but that wouldn’t have sounded so ‘nice’. It would have sounded authoritative, sure, and confident in the Truth…you know, what we used to call “Papal”; but in the modern misguided view of ‘humility’, that would be seen as arrogant and abrasive; not at all ecumenical. The redefining of words and their ontological meanings, like Truth, humility, duty, marriage, kindness, poverty, faith, human dignity, ecumenism, etc. gets us into MASSIVE trouble, and when the Bishop of Rome starts redefining them in his actions, omissions, and very words, we are in infinite trouble. A beach ball…A BEACH BALL on the Altar of Sacrifice (???REALLY???...does this show a clue of an understanding? Or does it instead make sense of and shed light on his refusal to genuflect after the Consecration?)

susan said...


As to your comment, “Namely that the Catholic Church welcomes sinners (of any stripe) but calls us to sin no more”, is true enough, but the problem is, he didn’t say that (!) And this whole line of questioning came from the hanging-chad of a problem of the notoriously flamboyant Msgr. Ricca (who still holds his high level Papal appointment!). This in-and-of-itself is unconscionable. I’m all for forgiving the repentant, but putting people in high positions of authority who have flouted their perversion, having been caught numerous times in scandal-causing incidents, and then promoting him for it, puts the promoter’s judgment in serious question for me. There was a day when a Pope would have sent a priest such as this (even after repentance and Confession) to an isolated monastery for the rest of his life to do prayer, penance and reflection (for the good of his own soul and the souls of the scandalized), rather than rewarding his misbehavior out of some misguided sense of compassion. Msgr Ricca, and too many others like him, should have never even been considered for the priesthood, let alone ordained and promoted. This is the seed of the abuse scandals, and we have apparently learned nothing. We are upside down.

Now, as to your points that you claim are clear, I would respectfully disagree:

a) The Holy Spirit does indeed guide the conclave. There is however no guarantee that the Cardinal electors will follow His guidance. We are sometimes punished with bad clergy that the Holy Spirit allows in His Permissive Will, but does not impose by His Decretive WiIl.

b) He does indeed receive the graces of the office; it is up to his own will and disposition as to whether those graces are activated and efficacious or not. It’s like I tell my Confirmandi as to the 7 Gifts….God gives you a trillion dollar check and He’s good for it; it is however up to you whether you cash the check, or throw it in the back of your sock drawer. Francis may in fact be the same man at heart as Cdnl Bergoglio. We are given the free will to resist and reject the effect and efficaciousness of God’s grace. It’s the reason we can have such dichotomies in Bishops like St. Thomas a’Becket and Rembert Weakland.

susan said...

c) Amen…no rebuttal to your statement.

d) again, Amen….while keeping in mind again that sometimes we are punished in the clergy we get. That is per Scripture and the words of Saints. My prayers (and Rosaries) are frequently offered for Rome’s Bishop.

e) I will echo the words of the wise Breathnach here and say, no one is rejecting the Pope. Legitimately pointing out problems in loving criticism (and yes it is loving; this is another word whose true meaning has been raped in today’s culture, even amongst many of the faithful) is not a rejection. It is a prudent recognition of reality. We had a Pope who veered to Arianism and exiled St. Athanasius…would it not have been correct to say, “wow, that’s just wrong”? We have got to have a true, Catholic understanding of the Pope…too many view him as some sort of divine puppet. He is not. Yes, he is given the magisterial charism and the Petrine power of binding and loosing, but he can also do a WHOLE LOT of damage short of changing doctrine at its core and teaching heresy. We’ve lived thru a buddha placed on a Tabernacle, syncretistic prayers, kissing of korans; we will certainly live thru the current and future shenanigans…the point being, ya can’t say they’re good, and you’ve got to recognize the massive damage they will do.

f) Again, I agree with this point, but I don’t think the remnant is refused the ability (in many cases the duty) to point out wrongs. The ability to ‘vent’ frustrations together is actually a safety valve against despair. There is a time to be quiet, and there certainly is a time to speak. I’m reminded of the classic comedy “The Great Race” where professor Fate is asked to please not talk about the melting iceberg as it might upset the women, to which he replies, “oh I’ll be quiet, I’ll be quiet; until the water reaches my lower lip and then I’m gonna mention it to somebody!” St. Athanasius would have been remiss to stay quiet. St. Paul (“But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned”) knew who Peter was, knew he had Primacy, knew he had the keys, knew he owed him his allegiance and obedience, but also knew when Peter was acting like he wasn’t Peter, the Rock rejecting the responsibilities and duties of the Rock, Paul had to say ‘knock it off already…be the Rock!’ (in all fraternal charity and love).

g) a thrice offered, BIG “Amen!”

Note that nothing in the above rant is aimed at you or anyone else posting above. It is a response, offered in charity and fraternal love. And it is all IMHO.

TTC said...

St. Albert,

I know nothing about your patron saint. Tell us about him?

I did read the entire statement and he did talk about about sin. He seems to be taking the position that sexually active homosexual priests who confess their sin is something that is consistent with acceptable conduct for priests if believe their sexual appetite has been blessed by God.

The absurdity of this assertion is wrong on so many levels one hardly knows where to begin.

There are exceptions, but the overwheing number of homosexual priests are coaching men, women and children to be sexually active. A good percentage of them are running hookup ministries where sexually active homosexuals being in speakers who affirm the virtue of sexually active relationships.

His statement indicates an obstinate blindness to the dangerous situation we have in the Church.

I am trying to be a responsible person and Have been urging people to reserve judgement, but to deny the man is seriously flawed and dangerous is something that is becoming increasingly more difficult, if not impossible.

We have gay priests hosting Sacred Liturgies themed to celebrate pride in sinful fornication, teaching heresy for decades. Ordering them to abandon the Novus Ordo and mandate TLM, said Pope Francis never.

breathnach said...


Thanks for a well done precis!

The media and the dissenters are likely to proclaim they are "more Catholic than the Pope" in their efforts to use Pope Francis for their own diabolical purposes. As faithful Catholics we can expect their guns will be aimed directly at us (prepare to be lumped in with the sedavacantists) as they attempt to further their secularization project.

Similarly, we have, so called "conservative" (whatever that means) Catholics, who are very weary of being in opposition to a decadent culture-the social costs are much too high. They will also be on heightened alert for faithful Catholics who stand up and criticize the Papacy. Elizabeth Scalia provided an absurd example of this tendency at her First Things blog. She argued that the Pope's undisciplined monologue, which gave aid and comfort to a relativist view of homosexuality,was an example of a wily, Machiavellian Pope using the media to promote Catholicism. Unsurprisingly, the media used the statement to promote the idea that the Church tolerates practicing homosexuals as priests, and will have to come around to accepting "gay marriage". Wow, what a media manipulator Pope Francis is.

I will remember you in my prayers.

Carol, you have been thoroughly responsible and thoughtful in your responses to the shaky beginning of this Papacy. After reading your reactions, I have checked some of my less charitable impulses.

susan said...


?Precis?...I learn the BEST words from you! :)

Thank you for the prayers (and the wisdom)...I never fail to be edified by what you write.

St. Albert said...

Hi Carol,

You wrote:

St. Albert,

I know nothing about your patron saint. Tell us about him?

My "screen name" refers to Albertus Magnus, O.P., Doctor of the Church and teacher of Thomas Aquinas.

He's the patron saint of scientists, and I'm a chemist, so in that sense I've always considered him to be my Patron.

Susan, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply. After reading over my rant, I concede that it's got a few holes in it. Thanks for pointing them out and filling in the rest of the story.

And again, for clarity, when I spoke of rejecting the Pope I was not referring to anyone I've seen posting here (although I've seen that sentiment expressed elsewhere).

Indeed we live in interesting times.


susan said...

'St. Albert', you are a gentleman and a scholar.

(I love your name, and your magnificent Saint! :)