We're all Lutherans now.
Pope Fran will soon celebrate that at the 500 aniversary of the schism; which he will call ecumanism.
I think the SSPX boys have a point.

With Francis, the DeathStar will be complete. No mud wrestling match between Alicia Ambrosio over at Salt and Light and Christine Niles over at Voris outfit can stop this now. Frankie Babie will tapdance on the roof of the Vatican while Cardinal Pell is forced to empty the reserve of the Vatican to Syrian refugees to turn Peter's Basilica into a mosque - all in the name of mercy.

"...And if our prayers for his change of heart do not receive the answer for which we hope, it behooves us at least us to recognize the good that God is drawing from his missteps, from every FLUB on the AM and FM channels of the noisiest pontificate in the history of the Catholic Church."

Thank you! While error must always be refuted, rejected and truth espoused and upheld, what you say here, in this final sentence, I believe is most important, and I am very glad for it. The good that God brings out of evil actions is a manifestation of God's will, and you say well here what I have struggled to express in three years since I started my own site, to encourage prayer for all bishops (and preeminently the pope) that God's will be fully accomplished in and through them, for the glory of God, the good of the Church, and the sanctification of souls.

In connection with that effort, I remember reading a story related by St. Alphonsus de Liguori about an abbot who asked a monk as to the cause of various miracles, who replied he did nothing other than to will what God wills, saying in reply, "I direct all my prayers to the end that God's will may be done fully in me and by me." I thought about that for a while, and when I considered all the problems in the Church and the world, I realized I didn't need to know the mechanics of what caused those problems. God knows what they are.

The answer, it seemed to me, was in the very prayer I had been praying since I was a little child, the Our Father, specifically "thy will be done." I certainly do not discourage anyone from praying for specific things, but speaking for myself, I believed then by praying in that manner everything wrong in the world is addressed and everything good remembered, that God knows what is wrong, our weakness and the influence of devils and how to fix all these problems. Most importantly, that He did not need convincing to fix them because "God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living, for he created all things that they might be: and he made the nations of the earth for health: and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor kingdom of hell upon the earth," (Wis 1:13-14).

If there is any hell on earth, by wars and persecutions, we've brought it upon ourselves (I speak collectively as Man in relation to God). But God made an investment in us, to the hefty tune of the Son of God upon the Cross in order to make good of the wrong we had done to Him, and in consequence, the wrong we've inflicted upon each other. The point I want to make is that none can plumb the depths of the wisdom of God, nor know the time or place or manner by which He will correct the evils of our time. Peter had no clue about the good that lay behind the passion of Christ, of those things which Our Lord had to suffer, and even thought to discourage Him. God allows suffering and trouble, not strictly as a means of atonement but also because He can bring about a greater good. While we do not have the benefit of hindsight to know with certainty what good things may be happening in the here-and-now, I think we can know, at least generally, that while things on the surface appear troubled, like the boat tossed about in the tempest while Our Lord peacefully slept, God is simultaneously cleaning up His House.

All the things this pope has done and said and the reactions they are now provoking - might this be a modern-day equivalent of Saul being knocked off his horse? A prelude perhaps?

I do not know if the expression "God writes straight with crooked lines," is Catholic or not, but it would seem to be applicable in this instance.

How about this explanation- a gradual withdrawal of grace since 1960, allowing a "diabolical disorientation" of clergy and religious (including a series of valid popes, till perhaps this one), toss in a "bad council" and a "bad mass". End this period of about 50 years decay with a "pope" "under the control of satan" who will formalize the great apostasy that already exists with most so-called Catholics (don't think I am judging internal dispositions - there are plenty of surveys of "Catholics" that formally deny Catholic dogma). Add a world wide war and a Pope ("of the same name" Pius X) who flees Rome, and an antipope for a time (see Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont). Sound too far fetched? See how we are next year on the 100th anniversary of Fatima. Oh and watch and pray for Russia. God bless.

True - or was he referring to his baptismal name Joseph, which Bendict shares? Time will tell.

Get ready for the Papal non-ordained deaconettes. The neo- cats will sigh, but Tradition has been maintained, and doctrine unchanged. But, the liberal lapel sisters will shout we now have woman deaconettes who baptize, give spiritual counseling and distribute communion; that's one small step for woman and one giant step toward ordination. PF is formally the pope, but as the French now say, not my Pope.

Vatican II is a bad tree bearing bad fruit. It is as simple as that. And false authority keeps the people oppressed in a lukewarm state. The modernist heretics have done Satan's work well. The result of the disobedience of our Lady's requests at Fatima is now upon us.
Of course the Church will live on- but for a time, in the catacombs.

Francis is a pope of the fascist/socialist left a true believer in the Marx Hegel Frankfort school of thought. The Catholic Church will survive him and all its present day attackers as it has in many past pogroms

Mr Ferrara makes a point which could perhaps bring into focus better the whole problem. He says: "let me say a few words in defense of Francis...nothing Francis says or does is, in substance, as unprecedented as it might appear".

Rather than go back just two pontificates, he could have gone further, to when things started getting really bad from the beginning of modernism in the 1860's onwards under Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. These popes were trying to combat the theories inspired by naturalism that were pervading the Church and distorting her teaching. In historical terms, I think he would agree Pope Francis' problems started then. Metaphysics had always been a thorn in the modernist's side. The Church's fundamental teachings of Original Sin, Baptism, Holy Mass, Confession, the Immaculate Conception, and the Real Presence depend upon a correct understanding of the Lateran IV dogma of "ex nihilo" Creation. The only way the Church's enemies could undermine the Catholic Faith was to convince the Faithful the origin of mankind was by the natural laws of physics and biology. Darwin came to their rescue in 1859. Amazingly the bishops after Pope St. Pius X gradually capitulated to evolution theory to the point of DROPPING THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING OF CREATION AND ITS METAPHYSICS FROM THE SEMINARY THEOLOGICAL MANUALS! The modernists won, won, won! In consequence, the succeeding generations of clergy have been denied the basic magisterial teachings necessary to defend Revelation. Future priests were taught in their seminaries that they developed over millions of years from anthropoid apes! When the Magisterium is distorted to such an extent, a new ball game gets undeway which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church instituted by Our Lord.

Are not the errors inherent in those twisted dogmas, however heinous, inherited by subsequent Sovereign Pontiffs, the natural products of poisonous modernist roots?

Peter

It was indeed, Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X who exposed Judeo-Masonic Modernism and identified it as the primary enemy of Catholicism and did all they could to prevent the spread of the evil philosophy. However, the craft of the enemy infiltrated the Church with hateful Judas-Priests who are now Bishops, Cardinals and possibly even the Pope. We don't know how many thousands of the Judas-Clergy there are but, we can surely tell by their fruits who the most likely candidates are. It is time we stop theorizing about this or that known heretic whose opinions conflict with our Holy Catholic Church and focus on the real Judeo-Masonic Modernist enemy and the Judas-Clergy they have cleverly sponsored and still do, who we mistakenly call: "Father" "Your Excellency", Your Eminence" and most obtusely "Holy Father". It is also high time that we join together and not allow ourselves to go off on quixotic tangents. I trust that Messrs. Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt have taken the lead in this Counterrevolution and I think it best that we follow.

James,

To use your reasoning suggests attributing the current follies in the world to Adam and Eve and, of course you would be 100% right. Today's sexual debacle, for instance, has its roots in the concupiscence resulting from Original Sin. In Leo XIII's encyclical on Freemasonry you sent me, quite logically it connects the latter's activities to naturalism. The explanation of any phenomenon without reference to the Creator "ipso facto" stems from an atheist source. Naturalism, questioning a Creator, has appeared from the "beginning" in varying forms. Knowing this, where does it leave you? Despite its guise it is still the same Lucifer.

"Humanum Genus" brought to the surface the enormous damage actively being done to Christianity by Freemasonry. The evil author was always the same, albeit using different methods. A new one was under preparation, more lethal than any other in the demonic arsenal. 19th century liberals were hampered by having no empirical data to promote their natural species origin model. Then came Charles Darwin with his proposed natural selection scientific mechanism. This was just what the modernists (read Lucifer) were waiting for. Suddenly, after centuries of waiting, their philosophical argument was given a scientific rationale! Marxism was the first to come on board with the Church hierarchy, amazingly, not far behind. The consequences continue. Pointing this out has been shamefully delayed. How many victims? Quiescent bishops continue to fan the flames. They have been teaching evolution without a whimper from Catholics whatever their stripes.

Far from Darwinism being a distraction, it is the proximate cause of all you are trying to defend. It is the most obvious manifestation of Judeo-Masonic Modernism. Bring in the fire brigade and stop sawing off the branch you are sitting on! Focus on the entire issue, which in no way is a quixotic tangent, as it is the root of all the evils you are denouncing, and not a single inevitable culprit.

Mr Cunningham,

To say naturalism taught throughout the Church, without restraint from the prelature since the demise of Pope St. Pius X, is merely a "quixotic tangent" suggests an unawareness of the direct damage it has done to the fabric of the entire Church's teaching. Yes, it has inevitably produced bad clerics, but more importantly it has distorted the teaching Magisterium beyond recognition, Please read my previous post again.

Peter

Peter,
You are focusing on "Naturalism" which is a tenet of the Judeo-Masonic Revolution while avoiding the Well of Destruction from whence it came. Judeo-Masonic Modernism is an unrelenting demonic war on the Catholic Church. Like so many others you are trying to treat the symptoms of the tenets of the evil Judeo-Masonic Craft without really identifying and going after the creative source of the evil. It won't work, and as long as your just go after the symptoms and not the disease itself Yes, you are on a quixotic tangent. Please read the following:

http://w2.vatican.va/conten...

As Mr. Ferrara appropriately points out, Pope Francis has up to the time of the blasphemous "Amoris Laetitia", been behaving no worse than John Paul II and in fact not anywhere near as proliferate a heretic as the ( saintly ?) John Paul II. Then came "Amoris Laetitia" and with it a profound and counter-dogmatic breach in the two thousand year history of Catholic doctrine and traditional magisterium. This is not just another ambiguous and confusing Freudian Slip, this is theological violence, an attack on Christ, on the soul of the Catholic Church and it must not be treated as if it falls into the same category as ecumenism or religious liberty, as bad as those heresies are. This is much more egregious, an outright deleterious proselytization of an evil counter-Catholic religion that only Satan and Hell can prosper from. Pope Francis is obviously the Pope from Hell. Pray and hope and never give up the Faith no matter what.

I still say Pope John Paul II's "Ut Unum Sint" was way more of a blasphemous and counter-dogmatic breach of 2000 year Church teaching than "Amoris Laetitia"will ever be. Almost everything in "Ut Unum Sint" including using the title itself to promote false unity was already condemned by Pope Pius XI in "Mortalium Animos." This sentence of Pius XI from "M.A." condemning "ecumenism" sums up how devastating the "enticing words and blandishments " of PJPII in "Ut Unum Sint" and his 27 years of ecumenical practice has been to the Catholic Church. "But in reality beneath the ENTICING WORDS AND BLANDISHMENTS lies hid a most grave error, by which the FOUNDATION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED." So based on what Pope Pius XI wrote, which I agree with, THE CATHOLIC FAITH has already COMPLETELY DESTROYED years ago by Pope John Paul II's ecumenism. The key word here is COMPLETELY. When something has already been COMPLETE theres not much more anyone, even a Pope can do except maybe to add some more deadly icing to the already poisonous cake PJPII left us.

As usual, Gerrigou-Lagrange said it best, "The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.”

Yes, I love concision, the ability to so say much with so few words. I lifted it from a Life Site article, so I don't know where Gerrigou-Lagrange said it.

https://www.lifesitenews.co...

If I wasn't a Christian, and saw Francis as the representative of Christ on earth, I'd look elsewhere for a savior. This guy is a complete affront to all that I believe in.

Hear, hear.

If, instead of having learned about fairly traditional Catholicism before the end of V2, I were learning about Catholicism today (without access to groups such as the SSPX, which are not available to everyone, and the TLM or historic eastern Divine Liturgy), I would probably not take it seriously. I would probably not enter the Catholic church today as I did when I still had some traditional ideas in the 1960s and before I was disillusioned by the post-V2 mess. I would probably head straight for traditional, conservative Orthodox Christianity, where I eventually wound up, anyway.

I do not know what goes on in RCIA classes these days, but from my admittedly limited experiences with some of the priests in my local Catholic parish over the years, it would not surprise me if a lot of catechumens are basically getting mush, stones instead of bread (to use a biblical analogy).

It is interesting how quickly right-leaning Catholics forgot about JP2's and B16's theological "quirkiness" once Francis appeared on the balcony. Soon we were getting sentimental reminiscences about the supposedly good ol' days under John Paul. Never forget...

Francis no doubt looks foolish to Catholics of good will...but how many of the supposed 1.2 billion Catholics in this world are of good will? Id go out on a very short limb and say less than 5%. Almost all human beings who are alive, and claim to be Catholic, LOVE Francis. Without a justified outright revolt against him, led by the Church hierarchy, there is NO current hope for the vast majority of Catholic souls. The best trad/sede sites in the world are always only going to reach a very small percentage of the Catholic populace. Until the hierarchy wakes up, this downward spiral will continue until Christ returns. Morally speaking, the world in general does not PROgress, it REgresses as the years pass. Its not going to get better.

If I had to put a figure on it, probably less than 10% of Catholics would be in a state of grace, making regular use of the sacrament of confession. But if mass attendance is anything to go by, less than 20% (rough global average) would be attending and half of them disagree with one of more teaching of the Church. Truly faithful Catholics are a 'remnant' at the moment.

When we see or know someone commit a mortal sin aren't or at least weren't we taught their souls are in a state of mortal sin?

While nobody but Our Lord can judge the disposition of any soul, we do have His revealed Doctrine that rather than following the hard and narrow path which leads to salvation, the great majority will follow the broad and easy path which leads to damnation. AL and this pontificate of false mercy are prime examples of the broad and easy path so of course the great majority will love them.

If nobody but Our Lord can judge the disposition of a soul than there should be no complaints when pro-abort/sodomy politicians like Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. are allowed to receive Holy Communion and also the Pope would be right about permitting adulterers to receive.

During the last US election I visited a friend in another town who attends a novus ordo (I normally attend the TLM). I noticed that over half of the cars had pro Obama bumper stickers. When I pointed this out, my friend said, yes, I know we are a very liberal parish. This would probably include 2/3rds of the 1.2 billion.

What's really funny is that if you and I happened to meet up somewhere, and began to start discussing what was going on in the Catholic Church today, we'd likely be in agreement on just about everything.

So are you saying that most are of good will....or are you, as is your wont with me, just looking to argue? Yes comrade, I fully believe that most of the 1.2 billion supposed Catholics in this world are Catholics in name only. If you dont feel the same, then I guess we just disagree. See how simple that was?

I cannot judge the disposition of any soul....but I can also use common sense to see where the moral state of the Catholic populace, in general, is in 2016. This isnt "rocket science".

I agree with you on that. Being of good will and being in the state of grace are certainly different matters.

I think you guys are stuck on technical semantics. I would agree that casual observance of the scarcity of use of the sacrament of confession (and relative scarcity of its availability) points to a great deal of Catholic souls not in a state of grace. We also have the testimony of the numerous Marian apparitions which tell us souls are falling into hell "like flakes of snow". I'm guessing that Rich means state of Sanctifying Grace. Good will is not technically accurate in the context of I read it correctly but we get the meaning.

Pope Francis, Pope Francis the flubber!

(Adapted from Gladiator)

Imagine what surprises this Pope has in store for us 3, 5 or even 10 years down the road.

He's close to 80....I think his surprises are just about done.

This is one of those articles that must be read twice or at least once, slowly and attentively. Francis the Terrible, is so engaged in obfuscating and confusing traditional Catholic magisterial doctrine that he is making more and more (FLUB) mistakes and looking more and more foolish. His support mechanism and ghost writers have liberal and questionable histories that are now getting the attention he doesn't want. Comments by some of the secular radio talk show hosts on AM as well as FM are not holding back with their personal opinions of Pope Francis' far left politics and it looks as if his touring bus is running out of gas. Great job Christopher Ferrara!

Drawing upon multiple perspectives is essential in discerning a course through matters of great complexity. The speculative soft sciences such as sociology, psychology have their place, but to dilute and distort our essential perspective – Jesus Christ – known to us through faith and reason framed in Holy Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium – is senseless. And that is what is coming across through this pontificate. Simple stupidity.
Fraudulence of speculative disciplines is no substitute for faith.
There appear to be an inordinate number of “whanna-bes” in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, covetous of the limelight rendered to those in the clergy class with an “academic posture” characterized as “cutting edge.” For this crew piety is merely utilized as a garnish to fluff-up the “out of the mold” profile. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the quintessential example of this low brow cleric attempting to be something he is not while burdened with responsibilities far above his calling. The culling of the clergy class over the last fifty years as the result of a number of circumstances made this inevitable.
You don’t get good fruit from an inferior tree, and grafting the limbs of an inadequate specimen will surely tax the healthy recipient.
This man as well as his opportunistic cohort are not a match for the Universal Church which requires a depth of virtue and intellect in the present age not easily found. It is well beyond time for them to self-select and opt out of their positions. Go home.
They serve no one well including themselves. Perhaps themselves “be the ones” least served well from the perspective of Eternity.

Too harsh, without proper understanding. The episodes and texts used, alone, do not give a correct picture of JPII's and BXVI's teaching.

I agree with you, Paolo. What about JPII's GENIUS defense of human life?? If it wasn't for his conference in Poland discussing the issue of contraception while he was Archbishop of Krakow, Humanae Vitae may never have been written. And what about all of his other amazing writings in defense of human life that have been an inspiration for so many Catholics to fight for unborn babies, against euthenasia, etc. I agree with most of what you say here on the Remnant, but not this part. I agree wholeheartedly in all you say about Pope Francis.

Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae.

Paul VI called a commission to study the subject of contraception and this commission concluded contraception should be approved by the Vatican. At the same time, the Archbishop of Krakow Karol Wojtyla had a conference on the subject in Poland. Wojtyla and his conference attendees came to a completely different conclusion than the papal commission... Wojtyla published a report on their reasoning and conclusion... and this was a great influence on Paul VI in writing what he wrote for Humanae Vitae.

I love the Remnant but I tend to agree w you. Prudential errors pale in comparison to vitiating Catholic teaching on the sacraments. We are in a whole different world with the latter. Additionally, sure it would have been great if Benedict trashed WYD but he did manage to make it more prayerful...at one of his WYD about 100k young people silently adored Our Lord at Adoration.

It's not about their teaching, but rather their ventures into pastoral novelties.

Assisi & WYD-Need I Say More!

Precisely. Sound doctrine can and will be undone by praxis that is not sound. If, for example, a priest writes and preaches the unadulterated truth about Christ and Church but, because he hopes not to offend non-Catholics and thereby ease them toward the Church, also co-celebrates worship services with Protestants and talks up Rabbinic Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism as great religions that tell truth, then his pastoral actions undercut his sound teaching. In fact, those pastoral approaches ruin his sound teaching, rendering them wasted breath and ink.

The Vatican II documents, with all those ambiguous statements, made such contradictions in the life of the Church inevitable. And just as any small part of a sentence making the whole sentence false, in this game, the pastoral novelties make the truthful assertions false, not to God but to the people of this world.

It is for many best grasped by thinking of the father who rightly declares that drinking by children is wrong, but who when faced with drunken children allows his tenderness for them to absolve them so that not only does he not discipline them; he also takes a nip with them, you know, to prove he is not a self-righteous prig. That father by his actions makes his original words at best a waste of time. His children know them to be worthless, a joke.

That is what Vatican II has produced across the Church.

I sometimes wonder if he thinks of himself fulfilling the prophecy of Malachy, you know "Glory of the Olives" which is suppose to be peace or something. He thinks of himself offering an olive branch to everyone and that he's fulfilling the part. He just said the next pope will be "Peter"! So, being full of himself, he thinks he's the Glory of the Olives....

Interesting thought!

Fr. Malachi Martin said "Glory of the Olive branch." The glory of the real Church of Christ. The eclipse of the Sun (JP II Pontificate) followed by the glory -- the Holy Father who I believe, is Archbishop Lefebvre. The Glory of the Church is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not the Conciliar Church.