Looking at this from the outside, there may very well be repercussions; that the Tradition-minded will be maligned with greater force than before. And yet, this is Truth. It is one of the reasons I come here to 1P5 daily. An article at NCR headlined with- "Pope Francis: The World has a thirst for Peace." No. The world is thirsting for Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and His Church, here on earth. They are thirsting for the Truth... the Way, the Truth, and the Life! They are thirsting for a most tender and vigilant Blessed Mother who will love and mediate for, shield and console, fight for and protect us as she helps us climb the ladder of the Sacraments, which Our Holy Mother Church administers, through the merits of Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are not calculating rightly, not strategizing enough- but they are yelling as loud as they can that Truth is really ALL that matters, and He is Christ the King! (These shouts of triumph are as so many little pinpricks of light in the darkness to so many. Prelates may not listen, and Rome may definitely turn a deaf ear, but I am edified and strengthened because of their open defense of the Truth.)

Thank you! I have been trying to write something along these lines.....but you did it beautifully.

Molly Klein & Evangeline - I agree with you.
I personally feel a lot of emotions in above declaration, possibly some anger which could be avoided.
But this declaration its far more true than for example Card. Burke nice 'Amoris L. is not a magisterium, is not official, is a Francis private thoughts ..' & similar ... prevarications.
Yes Yes, No No, even if some emotions are involved.
When I read some St John the Baptists words, I find there a lot emotions, 'good anger'.

Is it not time for action rather than words? So far all the petitions, letters (private & public) by priests, academics & individual faithful Catholics have been disgustingly ignored & thrown on the rubbish heap. Those Cardinals/Bishops that showed some leadership at the outset have been put in the freezer. Their faith has been found wanting, so there is no-one at the highest level to come forward & start a counter-revolution. Cardinal Burke has already eschewed the idea!

I personally would be much more interested in a public campaign via the media (tv,radio,national newspapers throughout the world) & visible protesters outside the Vatican & PF's plush hotel, to pursue this NWO religion & government. Something akin to what ANF does in sending counter-protesters to pray outside abortion clinics & black mass venues. It will take cash but it would be money well spent.

While the hearts of these men are for Tradition Catholicism to be restored (which we all pray for) this is not going to be sufficient and will not entice those lukewarm & un-catechised Catholics it is so necessary to get on board.

Especially one which cost 10 Million Euros to convert for your own private use when you had perfectly adequate apartments in the apostolic palace already!!! Hence the moniker: "Franky Two Flats" ("Flat" is English for "Apartment" ;) )

For my next remodel, I'm going to be really "humble" and only spend 9 million euros! :)

And a sumptuous one at that.

"Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you."

That is an unfortunate choice of words as it confuses their own complaint with a political philosophy.

They should have said: "Yet, almost without exception, the faithful members of the hierarchy observe a public political silence while the unfaithful exult publicly over their temporary triumph thanks to you."

One gets the impression that they are writing with anger, never a good idea as it garbles the message. I may agree with the majority of their complaints and could add to them, yet I am already leery of any good outcome if they continue to employ the same kind of argumentation and language.

I think most people get the point that "conservative" and "liberal" are not used in any merely political sense but only analogously. "Faithful" versus "unfaithful" wrongly implies a simple binary between the wholly orthodox and the heretical, which does not reflect the actual confused state of the Church today.

Nor is it necessary to spell out that the liberals are enjoying a "temporary" victory. There will be no "permanent" victories in this crisis, nor have there been in any another of the Church's past crises, as the document as a whole makes clear, especially in the conclusion.

In the sentence I quoted there is no impression that the terms were analogously used, they are simple statements of a political disposition. In no way does unfaithful/faithful or orthodox/heterodox boil down to a 'simple binary (and somehow conservative/liberal do not...) one doesn't need to be unfaithful in everyway to be unfaithful and the majority of heretics are not heretical in everyway, they are so in one or two aspects of the Faith. The language of Faithful and Unfaithful, Orthodox and Heterodox is the Language of the Church from time immemorial, for you to oppose them is strange indeed, it appears that you are merely defending something which you shouldn't.

And with that thought, never mind I can see that you are in defense mode so anything I say is pointless. Do know that I most probably support the majority of your concerns and am not an enemy, but that doesn't mean that I need to embrace folly. Your liber has already begun poorly, including the style or lack off with which it is written. At the very least, please employ a more competent author to edit the work prior to publishing it.

I see you are one of those catty critics who spends too much time on line, if we are to assume "Fr. RP" signifies your vocation. As you are in attack mode anything I say is pointless. Nor do I see a high level competence in your own prose.

I love your friendly fire! I shall call you "Father Friendly Fire Ferrara"!

May your friends never tire of dialoguing with you!

When love fails, the answer is more love!

Likewise, when dialogue fails, the answer is…more dialogue!

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Have you shaved since I saw you last? https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Never claimed to have a high level of competence as an author (which is why I have any work that is going to be published edited) I am not in attack mode, I was in helpful critical analysis mode now I am preparing to enter into ignoring this thread and entering into prayer.

Father I am sorry you receive attacks and offensive attitudes on conservative sites. Please do not desert us. What you write always sounds calm and measured to me. You have many friends so please continue to be among the few Priests who are prepared to share their calm logic informed by Catholic teaching. We so need to hear these voices today! God bless you!

You, sir, are as thin-skinned as any traditionalist I've ever seen on-line.

Catty critics?

Funny how extremists on the right share certain characteristics with those on the left; i.e. the tendency to project onto others the exact behavior of which they are guilty themselves.

Thanks for identifying your role at The Remnant. I'll be certain to avoid your screeching there.

Your proclivity for alienating those who are most likely t become your friends and allies is unnerving. Self-sabotage is typically an entrenched life pattern, the attachment to which is so deeply rooted that serious work in therapy is required to achieve success in extricating oneself from it.

Frankly, I don't know what the prospects are for an entire community which seems to be stuck in it together. Perhaps the biological solution we've been awaiting to clean out the progressive cabals in the Church may well provide the only feasible way to free us from those whose anger makes them unfit to lead the effort to reclaim the Church.

Fr, you sound quite a bit angry! just another different opinion. Easy..

Any idea what it would take to get "La Republica" to serialize this? Its probably the only way that the guy who needs to read it would actually get to read it.

Translate it into Italian and send it via Priority Mail International to "La Republica" AND the Vatican.

A very good idea. We will work on that.

Happy to oblige. 😊 I would also add in "signature required" so they can't say that it got "lost" like the condemnation of Communism got "post" at VII (cf. Rhine Flows Into The Tiber).

Maybe taking out one page advertisements in all major USA & European newspapers would get most peoples attention plus bill-borads all around Rome & Lund. When they take them down just erect more and so on. Probably more effective, if it could be organised. I'm sure Veri Catholici would oblige for the Rome arrangements.

Radio would be another outlet to consider.

Dr. Ferrara, I was of the understanding that Conservative was defined somewhere along the lines of 'Liberalism in slow motion' or perhaps 'Bending the iron softly.'

My being a regular slob, I really don't know what it means.

That's quite true. Today we see in the Church a dilution of the meaning of "conservative" paralleling its dilution in the realm of politics. A truly conservative Catholic would be a Pope on the order of Saint Pius X. Today a "conservative" hierarch would be considered a Modernist by Pius. Hence the emergence of the term "traditionalist" following Vatican II. The very existence of that term indicates an unprecedented change in the Church.

I found the three-part series incredibly brave, cogent and absolutely necessary in the context of this almost unimaginable crisis in the Church. Congratulations to these three for putting in writing what the true remnant of the Church really thinks about this heretic pope. Perhaps these three being the first to take such a strong a public stand makes others embarrassed or defensive about their not having done so. And by the way, as a former newspaper editor and mass communication professor, the series was very well written.

Thank for your answer, sir.

Thus cuckservative is best; in the Catholic realm, CatholiCuck.

Valid points, all. I think we are at a moment when traditionalist Catholics who can articulate clearly and calmly what the problems (and solutions) are have an unusual opportunity to be listened to by those who might never have done so otherwise.

The same old polemics are not going to accomplish that. I agree, as you say, with their objections. I understand their indignation. But indignation is...well, it's not a selling point, I guess. My one worry is that this further marginalizes those who authored it.

Just looked at the first part of the first part, not very impressed. They are allowing their passions (which have been inflamed for decades and are now raw) to get the better of their reason and purpose (and they demonstrate considerable amount of their own hubris in the section on Pope Francis false humility.) And looking at their comment section, they need to moderate their moderator. He is ridiculing good comments that people made in sincerity.

Am I allowed to ask how long you have been working for the Church, Father? Where is your carefully weighted comment, with just the right words? Please, you and other priests should do your job and then it wouldn't fall on laymen to do it for you, while being criticized for doing so. How disappointing. That is a big reason we find ourselves in the situation we are in. Can we say 'circular firing squad'?

Are you accusing me of not doing my job? Are you rashly presuming that I have not addressed these subjects (and many more) in my parishes? Am I obligated to host an online forum and post everything I say and preach and teach in my parishes so that you can be assured of my orthodoxy and that I am faithfully carrying out the obligations of my office?

Furthermore, I do not need to be perfect and or have written the perfect document in order to point out obvious errors in another document, that is an erroneous position.

If someone I am going to battle with another against a common opponent and that other begins to act rashly and wave his firearm wildly around shooting everywhere, I'm supposed to be good with it because he's on my side?

I am saying that you have not backed your criticism well, Father. I certainly would not question your sermons without hearing them, or your teaching in general. I have great regard for you as a Catholic priest. I am just sorry that what appear to be minor details, presented by men in the trenches for many years because the Bishops won't do their jobs, are quickly critiqued because of a minor aberration in form, when the basic tenet of the presentation is so correct.

All I did was point out that I did not agree with the style they were employing as it is filled with unnecessary ad hominem attacks. This will not further the cause of the Mission of the Church. If one is going to address the Pope about his ambiguities and apparent errors publicly one should stick to objective facts and not enter into the realm of the subjective. I hope and pray that all of us who are in agony over the harm being done to Holy Mother Church will rejoice together over Our Lord's victory, both now and forever. Amen.

"I did not agree with the style they were employing as it is filled with unnecessary ad hominem attacks"

Hmmm. Perhaps a megaphone is necessary for their task? Perhaps dialectic is simply not enough to punch through the thick epidermis covering the hierarchy's ears. Perhaps they needed to switch it up with some rhetoric.

Aristotle often argued that rhetoric was necessary when dialectic failed:

"[B]efore some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody, as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience."

"Am I obligated to host an online forum and post everything I say and preach and teach in my parishes so that you can be assured of my orthodoxy and that I am faithfully carrying out the obligations of my office?"

That would be one of the most wonderful things I've seen from a priest. Not the part that you'd be forced to do it, though. But putting every work out there online would be fantastic. I can't tell you enough how often I'd wish a priest would put his sermon out publicly, so that I could go over it a second or third time.

Of course, you've put more of your work online than most. So, please don't think I'm saying you're lacking in what you produce.

I was simply trying to help her see that she was rashly judging me when she has no idea of what she is speaking about. Hence the series of questions to clarify what she is actually saying so that she can reconsider and stop making false accusations, for that is actually seriously sinful.

And I am not writing a remote case from a distance but responding directly to someone who is falsely accusing me personally for failing the obligations of my office.

This is a very common occurrence in the com box: false accusations based on presumption based on past experience and a general problem.

....Father, with all due respect, you were also the one who previously spoke out in strident terms against the SSPX.... rashly presuming others weren't doing as they "should" based solely on, it seems, what you feel you must do. Or what you presume you would do should this crisis become even graver. (There but for the grace of God go I.) That said, much about the non-binding nature of Vatican II documents has been revealed because of the position of non-compromise. Perhaps not the method you would have chosen, but that method God has chosen for others. Not you.

Sorry, but marginalizing those efforts that should be lauded, specifically those of the Remnant and CFN in doing what they are called to do in conscience, is not helpful to anyone.

"...And looking at their comment section, they need to moderate their moderator. He is ridiculing good comments that people made in sincerity."

In truth, perhaps you need to look with an unbiased eye at your own comments and posturing, and your own bias and perception of what "you" consider correct.

For while you take offense at those who intimate that you may not be doing your job, you seem to have little issue with presuming to tell others what their job is. Physician heal thyself.

I said that I would not be joining the SSPX because they are not in full communion with the Church; hopefully that will soon come to an end and they will have a personal prelature.

And I am allowed to disagree with the method being employed by CFN and the Remnant without abandoning the Faith. I am not marginalizing their efforts. What I am concerned about is that they are marginalizing their efforts by the style and tone they are employing. They could make a simple objective case without engaging in rhetoric and ad hominem accusations.

May God help us all to Love Him and Server Him in sincerity and truth so that we may further build up His Holy Bride and give glory to His Name. Amen.

PS: And I say this with sincerity: thank you for reminding me to pray and humble myself before responding to article or comment that I don't fully agree with.

Are you ever not preachy? I appreciate that you like to contribute here, but it seems the only mode you have is to talk down to people - couched in enough respectful language that it's difficult to ding you on technicalities.

Either way, I find it abrasive. It leads to more pointless arguments than it accomplishes persuasion. I'm getting really tired in general of tenor of the comment box. It's become a fever swamp lately. We need to elevate our game.

...I appreciate your contributions to the good fight, Steve. (And I'm glad to see you posting this article here.)

It often seems, however, that commentary is often posturing and negating the valid contributions of others. Others who have previously been marginalized here, but now, are not. Deo gratias! (Truth will out.)

That said, isn't being respectful what we are called to do? Isn't being honest what we are called to do?

There is nothing pointless in being honest about the worthy contributions of others, Steve. But I don't doubt you're exhausted by the fever swamp of the combox. It's reflective of the great work of necessary unification and building up that must be done so that those who embrace the Catholic Faith in its entirety can work together, recognizing the gifts and contributions of others to get the job done.

Again, it's your parlor. Moderate as you will. But this is a massive crisis and we all need to build each other up. To include welcoming the possible gift of ire in the Remnant CFN piece.

Who knows?

While some castigate those at the Remnant and CFN, such a letter may be precisely the goad necessary to spur those in positions of authority to do the job of couching their words in precise kindness to call out His Holiness.

I think that The Remnant, CFN, and basically, the SSPX have done yeoman's work for our troubled age. They have cut a path through the forest. Sure, they might sometimes use a blunt machete. But without them, we would be in a more difficult position than we currently find ourselves.

Do not be tired of the tenor. It is necessary. After all, one can always simply not read it.

The comment box enables us to sample the audience. It is a thermometer. Don't consider being like CMTV and their strange cultish ways. Freedom to talk, even if annoying, is a very transparent and honest way to go about this.

Elevate this. It seems that the needs of Catholic men through history have been pretty simple; give me the sacraments, the truth and a cause. Our current leadership has publically given us; "dont breed like rabbits" a publicity photo of a man essentially sucking the toe of a mohamedian and now adultery is no big deal. Frankie 2-flats has created a demand for Catholic manhood. This blog just disqualified itself from meeting this demand by "dont be so MeAN!". God help us, it is eternal salvation and the tip of a sword at our throats that we are facing here. Go dialogue over tea. There are men's souls to save (and may those saved carry their women and children with them)

I'm guessing you haven't read much here, Stephen. I'm not saying "don't be mean." I'm saying, "be effective." The right message delivered through the wrong rhetoric is simply not going to reach as many people.

My criticism has been widely misunderstood to apply specifically to this Liber. While I conceded Fr. RP's criticisms that impugning motives and ad hominem detract from the larger substantive message being presented, I excerpted the first part of the Liber and shared it with our audience because I agreed with it. In fact, the whole point I was making in the post is that with all that was mentioned as strikes against Francis, there's so much more that could be said in each area. I've been documenting his deviations for three years. Search this site for "Pope Francis" and then tell me if you think we're advocating simple dialogue.

My criticism, which I didn't think merited being in a post of its own (hence its appearance in the comment box in a larger discussion about an effective strategy) is about how average every day Catholics are being violently shaken awake by this papacy and looking for answers. If they come to the traditional Catholic community to find them, are they going to be put off by the way we tend to sneer at anyone who doesn't get it? By the labels we use, or the condescension? By the underlying victim mentality that comes from being marginalized for so long?

I've always advocated hard truths. That doesn't mean they can't be offered diplomatically enough that people can palate them. A friend of mine always reminds me (especially when I feel like taking the gloves off) that when G.K. Chesteron sparred with George Bernard Shaw, he always gave him enough wiggle room that if he came around and converted, he could do it without having too much egg on his face.

I was cemented in my faith by knocking on doors as a missionary, teaching people about Catholicism and trying to convince them to convert or come back home. The only way to do that face to face (which many writers have precious little experience doing) is to establish common ground, and build from there.

This publication was always designed not just to report on the reality of the crisis, but to lead Catholics who have been robbed of their patrimony toward the beauty of tradition without making them feel browbeaten by it. Preaching to the choir is all well and good. But we also need to know how to evangelize.

"I was cemented in my faith by knocking on doors as a missionary, teaching people about Catholicism and trying to convince them to convert or come back home. The only way to do that face to face (which many writers have precious little experience doing) is to establish common ground, and build from there."

That some great experience, Steve. Others, though, have the experience of sustaining Catholics and their families (...likely to include some of the experience you describe). Their charter isn't so much to bring in the unknowing, but rather to sustain those who have known for a long, long time and take the lead to do what they can to address the issue.

I'm looking forward to everyone appreciating the efforts of all who are fighting the common enemy, although maybe on different fronts. We don't want to pursue common ground with one demographic only to experience attrition on the back end by discounting those whose audience is a little different.

Maybe, since you take such issue with tone and mode, you could write your own piece to Francis, taking the points you've outlined into consideration with an eye to garner those who may be put off by strong language. Goodness knows, you have a staff of capable writers!

Just a thought.

"Am I allowed to ask how long you have been working for the Church, Father?"

Facepalm. You don't know who you're talking to.