We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
So the Remnant thinks a “bad pope” can be removed by the Cardinals at will, just as a US President can be impeached by Congress?? Wow.....
A heretic removes himself.
There is little doubt that the Holy Catholic Church is under serious diabolical assault. As the pope’s continent wallows in Protestant apostasy, scandal and anti-religious hate-fuelled secularism Christ’s Church seems as inert and stunned as a rabbit caught in car headlights.In charity, Pope Francis is given the benefit of any doubt.Unless he shapes up, particularly given the souring anti-Catholic climate in Ireland, a former daughter of the Church, which he intends to visit, that benefit will quickly evaporate.Secularists regard Catholicism as an ‘evil’ to be extirpated root and branch from their communities. In this parlous state of things we need a Gregory, not a Francis.
Dear Mr Matt, as an Argentine Catholic and reader of Remnant Newspaper I feel hurt by the epigraph which Ms Yore uses as a refrain in her,otherwise excellent Open Letter to Pope Francis. The epigraph is not true and consequently it is unfair: it is not the Argentine way to supress and ignore. Regarding Jorge Mario Bergoglio, probably the first important book in the Catholic world concerning his apostacy and betrayal was written by an an Argentine , Professor Dr Antonio Caponnetto: La Iglesia Traicionada ( The Church Betrayed) Santiago Apóstol, Buenos Aires. 2010. Then , it was followed by another book by Professor Caponnetto called No lo Conozco. Del Iscariotismo a la Apostasía. Ed. Detente. Buenos Aires, 2017. Ms Yore can be illustraded further about this commitment to Truth by many outstanding Argenine Catholics, if she reads Dr E. Michael Jones ‘s Francis in Context: Have the end of times arrived in Buenos Aires?, which Dr Jones wrote after his personal visit to Argentina in March 2017.
In Domino et DominaLuis Alvarez PrimoBella Vista Argentina
I do agree with Senor Alvarez PrimoNations are holy - much good in Argentina!Individuals are the sinnersSinners are always individuals
I would like to repeat: WE MUST PRAY FOR THE CURRENT POPE FRANCIS.(And indeed, even more, of course, for the Papacy - w/ or w/o Señor Bergoglio)
Let us pray.
O King, O Lord Jesus Christ, help Pope Francis, put him under the protection of Your most Holy Heart.O God, O Lord and Master of Your Church, look from heaven mercifully to Yourservant Francis, whom You have chosen for Your deputy on earth. We beg You, grant him the graces:- to be preserved from all heresies;- to be released from Satan's influence;- to be able to be a model for everyone in Your Holy Church.O Almighty and eternal God, have mercy with Your servant Francis, and give him Your help to ask only for what is best for You.Amen.
Our Father (three times).
O Mary, Mother of Mercy and Refuge for all sinners. We urge You to look with mercy at the infamous heretics. You who are the Seat of wisdom, enlighten those miserably encircled in the darkness of ignorance and sin, so that they can clearly get to know the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the true Church of Jesus Christ, beyond which there is no salvation. Pray for their conversion and induce them to accept the truths of the Holy Throne.O Rejoice, Glorious Virgin Mary, You Who Have Destroyed All Heresies.Amen.
Hail Mary (three times).
Dear Mr Matt, as an Argentine Catholic and reader of Remnant Newspaper I feel hurt by the epigraph which Ms Yore uses as a refrain in her,otherwise excellent Open Letter to Pope Francis. The epigraph is not true and consequently it is unfair: it is not the Argentine way to ignore and cover up. Regarding Jorge Mario Bergoglio, probably the first important book in the Catholic world concerning his apostacy and betrayal was written by an an Argentine , Professor Dr Antonio Caponnetto: La Iglesia Traicionada ( The Church Betrayed) Santiago Apóstol, Buenos Aires. 2010. Then , it was followed by another book by Professor Caponnetto called No lo Conozco. Del Iscariotismo a la Apostasía. Ed. Detente. Buenos Aires, 2017. Ms Yore can be illustraded further about this commitment to Truth by many outstanding Argenine Catholics, if she reads Dr E. Michael Jones ‘s Francis in Context: Have the end of times arrived in Buenos Aires?, which Dr Jones wrote after his personal visit to Argentina in March 2017.
And you thought things couldn't get any worse. https://rorate-caeli.blogsp...
A ravenous, cruel wolf in sheep's clothing.
We will ALL be called to answer!!!Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces bears witness against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves.
Will HH condemn the pro-abortion decision in Ireland or will that be yet another occasion to grin and shrug and utter sweet nothings about being ‘non-judgmental’? Oy vey! Holiness, Oy vey! Job description!
Hey Cardinals of the 2013 conclave, "nice job." There were a number of strong candidates who were and are holy men of God, very knowledgeable of the Catholic Faith, including theology,(unlike Francis)yet you seemingly chose the worst possible candidate by far. And from reading Dictator Pope, the vote wasn't close. How does this happen?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$That's what it always is in the end
What made this Pope possible? Yes, Vatican II, but what made Vatican II possible?
The judeomasonic black operation called The American Proposition. See David A.Wemhoff. Fidelity Press.
What made Vatican II possible? I would say the typical culture of Catholicism since the Council of Trent, the emergence of the Counter Reformation and the Order of the Jesuits. Within this culture the key concept was submission to the clergy. Submission to the clergy became in fact the all-and-everything of Catholicism. This resulted, unintentionally, in the erosion of faith, long before Vatican II, even long before Vatican I. Faith became simply synonymous with this culture of submission.
The broad masses in catholic countries just became used to nodding to the authority of the Church and identified this with having faith and being catholic. And as long the Church was the main power, the ongoing erosion of the faith was not perceived. But when other, anti-catholic and anti-Christian movements began to emerge, most clearly after the French Revolution, things began to shift. And many catholics shifted their allegiance from the traditional main power, the Church, to the new revolutionary powers. They were simply trained to submit to the main power. As long as the main cultural power was the Church, they appeared to be catholic. When the Church was no longer the main power, they stopped being loyal catholics and submitted themselves to new masters.
When this became apparent, the clergy panicked and this panic at first resulted in Vatian I and the dogma of Papal infallibility. This was supposed to strenghten the culture of submission, keep the catholic flock together, and restore the power of the Church.
When this miserably failed, a new approach emerged. This was Modernism, ultimately resulting in Vatican II. This new approach was simply based on a concept of capitulation, and it tried to assimilate the Church to the new cultural powers and realities, because it didn't have the strength to resist and subdue them any longer. Tragic, but true.
One possible way out of this situation was never tried: To remain catholic but to accept loss of influence, even persecution, and simply become a tiny minority of faithful people.
Yes, a tiny minority entirely without power because persecution = fidelity.
O, but the Buddhists and Mennonites and Quakers are persecuted, so....
Excellent idea. It came from Quas Primas, right?
I don't know whose ideas you are presenting here but they are wildly wrong and you think Vatican 1 was owing to the culture of the time?
Lord have mercy, that's insane
The choice is between either a worldly church which pleases the high and mighty, and this was the option of the Jesuits, or a persecuted church which is faithful to the Gospel, and this was the option of Christ, who said that many walk the broad way and never will find life, and that only few find the narrow which leads to life (Mt. 7:13-14).
My point is not that persecution is is a sure sign of fidelity, but that the absence of it is a sure mark of worldliness. St. Paul said: “All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (II Tim. 3:12).
Let me ask you a question. Don't you find it very weird that when the early persecutions were over, and the Church became an established entity, even the dominating power of the Middle Ages, all the intial discipline of Christianity was given up? In the early Church persons were not baptized before they had consciously accepted the faith. They were individually questioned and examined whether they were genuine believers or not. And they were severely punished if they fell back into old sins. There was a general awareness that entering the Church was an "all-or-nothing" thing. That it was a huge decision.
During the Middle Ages all this changed dramatically. Catholics were baptized as little children and for the rest of their lives everything was smoothed out when it came to their confession of faith. A normal Catholic was never questioned, examined about his faith. All that was required was going through the motions. There was never a confronting moment. And this has remained so until our days. No wonder then, I would say, that only ten percent or even less of those who are formally catholic take the faith seriously. In the Southern countries of Europe, Catholicism is just taken for granted and nobody cares. It is just a cultural notion, which has nothing to do with the lives people actually lead. And the clergy seems only concerned about not losing the favour of these secularized masses.
To me this seems to be also the policy of Pope Francis. Keeping people attached to the Church in whatever faint or superficial ways, even if it requires major concesssions on doctrine and basic sacramental discipline.
Until Pope Pius XII the Church at least managed to guard the sacraments of defilement by the demand of sincere confession before receiving communion or any other sacrament. But now, under Francis, the last vestiges of discipline are thrown out of the window. Why? Essentially because the Pope and the clergy — like the Jesuits of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries — have only one real concern, which is not to lose the favour of today's worldly powers, the secular state as well as the cultural elite.
I don't know what college it was that subjected you to such a poor quality education but you, at least objectively, have a basis for a law suit :)
You don't know the facts about infant Baptism and you seem to have not noticed the Profession of the Creed at Mass or the way the Baptismal promises are publicly recited at Mass once a year etc etc
In any event, I made a mistake responding to your O.T troll
Yes, I know all this. But your bad manners and name calling are perhaps indications of lack of historical knowledge or just of impatience with a different perspective. I don't know. In any case, the later theological doctrine of Infant Baptism is difficult to reconcile with the fact that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine, adult baptism was still the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering the sacrament. Obviously, this doesn't imply that Infant Baptism was entirely unknown.
What you say about reciting the creed confirms my thought. Reciting the creed at Mass and the public renewal of Baptismal vows are just examples of "going through the motions" without any consequences. But when are individual catholics sincerely interrogated about their faith by the clergy? In my entire life I have met only one priest — at that time still a seminarian — who would sometimes do this. And I asked him about it. Together we noticed the same phenomenon. As soon as they are questioned individually or in an informal conversation, people withdraw and become very uneasy. Simple questions, e.g. whether they believe in the resurrection of Christ, or that Christ died for their sins on the Cross, are very often shruggingly dismissed: "These matters I leave to the Church". Or: "I don't know, I'm just a simple catholic". And even: "I'm not interested in that kind of stuff".
Why would people be so dismissive and show such unwillingness if they at least seem to be faithful catholics and go to Mass every Sunday? Why would they affirm in a formal, liturgical setting, things which they are not prepared to uphold or repeat in an informal setting in daily life? This doesn't reflect the attitude of St. Peter, St. Paul, or of St. Augustine. All of them would be flabbergasted if they received such reactions to questions like these.
Aliquantillus, what you mention about the uneasiness of people you give specific question to is nothing but a clear sign of either a lack of education/training or lack of understandin or intellect. That happens quite too often - similarly a question about whether the Earth is a center of the Universe might give you a shiver, too - because beside Bible there is no evidence of either for or contra.I think that we should not compare the ordinary people of any time with the Princes such as those you mention, St. Peter, St. Paul, or of St. Augustine. And then, very few people are so well educated that they answer the biblical "no, the Earth does not spin" and can back that claim with an evidence.None the less, the Middle Ages were probably more complex, and more advanced (especially philosophically) than we are generally taught they were. Thus, nothing is farther from reality than declaring that in Middle Ages "Catholicism is just taken for granted and nobody cares". Take all the tides - 5th+6th centuries the shift of nations (as documented in Europe), protection against all kinds of schismatics and heretics from, say, 7th century till today, many of those were military actions such as Battle of Vienna in 1683.
I understand your point. But do you think that the examples I gave — affirming such elementary truths as Christ's resurrection or his sacrifice for our sins — are only for the well educated? If so, what sense does it make to recite them in the creed at Mass? And why does St. Paul make such of point of these truths to the lay people of Corinth (in I Corinthians ch. XV) as the most elementary and foundational truths of the Gospel he preached to them to which they would have to cling and communicate to others.
My question is: Why are catholics unable to speak about and witness of their faith in a normal intelligent way when questioned about it on an individual basis and in an informal setting. Why are they are able to react intelligently when asked about their jobs, their hobbies and their families, but get embarressed, wooden and clumsy as soon as they have to talk about their faith and religious practices? Speaking about the faith, or, for example, to have a discussion about the scriptural readings after Sunday Mass seems to be a taboo in catholic circles. Why?
Not my pope! I agree, he should resign. If he won't resign, then yes, the Cardinals should remove him.
Never, ever, EVER believe anything Bergoglio tells you.
The only way to understand him is to look at what he does.
"You foolishly misjudged these Karadima/Barros victims."
And the power of the internet to expose the truth. The one thing the Bergoglians are failing steadfastly to understand is the internet and how it works. Thank God for our only advantage.
I think the Second Coming has come and gone. Welcome to the Hell Phrancis says doesn't exist.
Elizabeth Yore, very well said.
We have to pray for the bad pope. Not insult him.
"Even though the Catholics who are faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the true Church of Jesus Christ."The Holy Athanasius
"Where faith is in danger, it is legal, even correct, to resist the Pope's decision publicly, as did Saint Paul, oppose the Holy Peter."The Holy Thomas ab Aquino
"If a future Pope teaches something that is contrary to the Catholic faith, do not follow him."The Blessed Pope Pius IX
Your quote and what has been happening to our Church since Vatican II makes Jesus's words: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7) so clear to me.
Regarding the " ... do not follow him" quote of Blessed Pope Pius IX ... this is why I haven't been to Mass for several years now. I haven't been able to reconcile the prayers that include the statement that we offer the sacrifice in union with Francis. I just can't. I DON'T follow him; I believe, based on his actions, that he is a heretic and therefore cannot be Catholic, therefore cannot be Pope.
I have been in a quandary for years ... I hate not assisting at Mass, but I can't pretend I'm in union with a heretic. I haven't even been to a priest because even the ones I believed were orthodox started changing after Francis. One friend in the Catholic publishing world told me that priests are afraid not to change to Francis's party line. How is one to know? I suffer because I feel I am offending God; but wouldn't it be worse to go to Mass hypocritically?
See if this helps http://www.traditioninactio...
"...but wouldn't it be worse to go to Mass hypocritically?"NoSo much to say...but I will be brief.1. Pray for the Pope...he IS wrong in much...PRAY PRAY PRAY2. Pray for yourself...you too are turning your back on our Lord. Persevere!
3. The 'daddy wound' will not hold water at your judgement. Refer to #2.4. Find a TLM...if you can't, pray that one forms in your area. Or find the best NO you can...close your eyes and meditate throughout the entire Mass...ignore the hand-shaking nonsense, the hand waving nonsense, the Communion in the hand blasphemy (kneel as you receive)...in short: be above the fray.5. Read the comments below from No Hagerf, Arthur MCGowan, and the Reply from No Hagerf to Disqus1836. Pray for enlightenment to their words.6. Pray the Rosary
Praying for you...me...the Holy Father...and the Holy Catholic Church
Read Phoenix from the Ashes by Henry Sire.Even a heretic Pope is a Pope.
Pray for his conversion!Don't obey or follow him!Sign up in the crusade against the heresy of Modernism - including Vatican II!But do not leave the Church!Nor the Sacraments!
I RETURNED to the Holy Roman Catholic Church by finding a traditional Catholic priest and I attend exclusively the mass of St Pius the fifth ... my faith has been renewed, energized and I've become a very sober Catholic after leaving the Vatican II church! I will never look back. I Praise Jesus and His Blessed Mother that I can go to this Latin Mass (for the past 11 years!) It is a strain and a struggle to keep our Chapel open but we're doing it. We know what it's like now to be a catacomb Catholic.
Don't deprive yourself of the sacraments. Unlike the angels, humans have to live with confusion, ambiguity, and doubt. And we have to live with the fact that some people see the truth much sooner than others. When you go to Mass, you are not "pretending" anything. You are acknowledging that you are part of a human institution that is in turmoil.
"As it is permissible to resist the Pope that attacks the body, it is also allowed to resist the Pope that attacks, worries and distresses the souls - especially the Pope trying to destroy the Church. I say it is highly legal to resist him through not to do what he wants and to prevent his will to be carried out - but it is not allowed to judge, punish or abstain from him, as there are acts that only suit him who is superior to him."The Holy Robert Bellarmine, SJ
Tis a wicked time we live in. It was predicted: this false church. We must cling to the Truth and Teachings that can never change and look past the evil shepherds and look to Christ and Our Lady and seek holiness, the counter to evil, and await the Lord's intervention and Our Lady's Triumph which surely must be drawing closer.
The cover-up long predates Francis. It has been a systemic problem in the Church for a long time. The case of the Legionnaire's and Marcel. Personally I believe JP2 knew a lot more than is admitted by his supporters and helped cover that up. The refusal to accept the resignation of Cardinal Law. The scandal in the US in which almost no bishops were held accountable and in which it is likely most bishops knew what was going on.
Right now the Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a scandal which has been met with a breathtaking act of leadership in which Pastor Mohler this week gave an outstanding address on the scandal and admitted openly that there has been a huge problem as regards the participation of SBC leaders in a cover-up of the scandal. Some leaders have already been removed and other will soon be removed.
Imagine if a US Catholic cardinal had given an address like that back in 2002, at the large bishops’ meeting in Dallas that addressed the sex abuse scandal, how might things have been different — and better — for the Catholic Church today? Sadly, despite the latest from the Vatican, I believe the cover-up continues. The homosexual element in the priesthood and among the hierarchy is so pervasive and controls so much of the Church that correction/removal/punishment on a large scale is not going to happen.
I have the greatest respect for Mohler. He would make a better Pope than Bergoglio.
In Mexico, the general word was that Maciel asked Pope John Paul to hear his confession, and thereby tied JP's hands via the Seal of Confession. I heard this years ago, when the scandal was just starting to really break out. Apparently, Maciel bragged about his shrewdness, and the word got out. I couldn't say whether or not it's true, but I think it's possible.
JPII would never have heard Maciel's confession. No Pope is permiited to hear any cleric's confession. Canon law. Maciel was lying.
"No Pope is permiited to hear any cleric's confession. Canon law." Please cite the canon that mandates that no pope can hear a cleric's confession.
I don't know about Maciel, but PJPII heard confessions all the time. And since there are certain sins which are reserved to the Holy See, why wouldn't he hear confessions?
I hope the holy father does resign in shame-soon-and can spend the rest of his life in a dreary drafty old convent like they did to pope benedict.
Be careful what you wish for...
If he were an Emeritus Pope then we would have 3 Popes. That would further complicate, confuse and divide the Church. That's going from the pot into the fire in my opinion.
1 Cor. 1: 10-18. We already have one pope who resigned. If PF resigns and another pope is elected, the faithful will be even more divided.
No, we have one pope who was likely forced out, and another who is a heretic. This is unacceptable.