The discussion on obedience was the most fascinating part for me. If true, it explains so much about why we are plagued with company men in the episcopacy, and why even good priests are afraid to speak out. I'd like to hear from Father RP on this, so here's hoping he turns up.

Of course, the silver lining to this dark cloud is this: if our bishops are truly men of no fixed beliefs other than blind obedience to whomever happens to be pope today, many of them will turn on a dime to become fearless champions of orthodoxy as soon as (may it please God) a faithful man is elected to the Petrine Office.

It has nothing do with obedience. It is because the Cardinals have stomach problems... THEY GOT NO GUTS!

Sadly, it is beginning to look that way.

Keep them in prayer.

Nice one.

"...many of them will turn on..."
Do you not think there is NOW time to be brave? It is not NOW the time to speak the truth?
Do we not think there is always time to speak and to defend the truth? The TRUTH?
Did Jesus wait till successor of Pilat will come, who maybe will be a 'good one' who'll give Jesus a freedom instead the cross?
If we are true believers, than we know the TRUTH. When we know the truth, than is always without exception those time which we call 'NOW', the time to speak and defend the TRUTH.

Of course I think this. But if Lamont is right, those aren't the kind of shepherds we have right now.

We have a few - the four Cardinals and the bishops of Kazakhstan.

The Anglican Ordinariate is standing firm, as well. Bishop Lopes issued a solid pastoral letter affirming the orthodox teaching, and our local Ordinariate priests do likewise.

But then, these men spent decades in the wilderness, effectively exiled from the Anglican Church because of their fealty to God's word. They are accustomed to being on the wrong side of heterodox authorities.

How can men with no convictions champion anything ? Fair-weather friends are not friends worth having.

One bishops' council says one thing, another council says another. In charity, the pope MUST clarify. By not doing so, Pope Francis is sinning against charity. Whether he is a formal heretic or not, Pope Francis is a danger to the Faith. Because this is such a serious matter, it could cause a schism in the Church. Should that happen, the blame for it would fall completely at the feet of Pope Francis, and that is not something anyone should want to go to their judgment after causing. Pope Francis, on the other hand, seems to relish the thought of possibly causing a schism. He only appears to care about "encounter," a stupid, sentimental, protestant understanding of man's relationship with God. If his reputation for public humility and mercy was also indicative of how he is reported to be in private, I might believe him. In which case, I would just say he is painfully naive and perhaps a bit senile. His reputation in more private circles, however, is one of severity.

He's like a mobster. A mobster often puts on a good show for the public. They might do charity work, they might be likable people as far as their neighbors are concerned, but they are monsters in private. That is Pope Francis.

It seems almost comical to me that Jesuits would be talking about any religious figure as having absolute authority. I was in the seminary with men who left the diocesan seminary to join the Jesuits precisely because the Jesuits were doing pretty much as the pleased and IGNORING the pope, the bishops, or anyone else who told them they could not do or say whatever they wanted to do or say.

It has always been my experience that the liberal element in the Church NEVER strove to change Church laws or teachings for their own benefit, since they were already doing what they wanted to do. They pushed for changes only so they could FORCE the more conservative or traditional members of the Church to do what the liberals wanted them to do. A couple of very plain examples of this are "communion in the hand" and female altar servers. Neither of these were doctrinal matters, true, but the liberals were already using girl altar servers and receiving and distributing communion in the hand. They pushed through legislation ONLY because they wanted to force conservatives to do these things.

Some of my liberal priest acquaintances are now laughing and telling me that they have been giving Holy Communion to divorced and "re-married" people for years, and that they have been doing the same for people who are not even civilly married, but just cohabitating. They don't see this as "any big deal". They are applauding Pope Francis because he is going to force ME to do so.

I have stated here before that I think it is ironic that the same German bishops who are now telling us that it is a very bad, perhaps even a sinful thing to tell cohabitating couples and the divorced and "re-married" couples that they are not entitled to the same sacraments as everyone else, decreed that Catholics who do not pay the "Church Tax" through the state are EXCOMMUNICATED. Protestantism caught on among the German princes because they stood to make a great deal of money from it. Are we seeing the same motives at work now?

Father, it's a scandal that the Catholic Church in Gernany receives 6 billion euros from their share of the German Govt.-collected Church tax. That arrangement is so corrupting, and apparently a significant portion of that sum ends up in Rome and they are equally dependent on it. Now the trouble Cardinal Pell has had over implementing external audit scrutiny does make one wonder about how many people are in the trough. As painful as it is seeing what is happening in the Church today, it is no doubt a forerunner to the "making known of everything which is hidden" at some future stage. Poor Pope Benedict just got out of the way, and what we see from our ancient slow-moving Church, is a constant whir of activity and change in all the wrong areas of governance.

Yes Msgr. They are doing it for the profits. They do not realize that our Beautiful Lord would be serene enough to let the Church contract in population if the inhabitants were sincerely dedicated to Him. But He is not serene when these leaders allow people to live sinful lives just to expand the Church's population.

Another way of thinking about all of this is that a Pope's authority is essentially derived from his adherence to the historic doctrine of the Church which is based on Christ's teaching. Pope Francis, having apparently rejected this definition, has placed himself outside the Church's teaching and has consequently rendered himself a heretic without authority.

On "Why then have so few cardinals and bishops publicly lined up with the
four “dubia cardinals” on this? Lamont argues that much of the reason
stems from an absolutist understanding of “obedience, etc" This assessment by John Lamont gives the non-dissenting Cardinals an excuse that does not seem relevant in their case. I would say most of the non-dissenting Cardinals agree with Pope Francis. The others are afraid of losing their jobs. The red clothing they wear is a mockery of their sworn duties. Ann Barnhardt get it right: http://www.barnhardt.biz/20...

Things have come to a pretty pass. Let us pray and do penance.

I feel like I'm watching a novel of conspiracies. God help us!

Likely? No, definitely. Anyone who really knows their faith and isn't a papolator knows the answer.

True, bergoglio's disloyal preaching and doings against our Lord Jesus are numerous and blatantly evil. That perverse tango that he encouraged/oversaw, was performed in front of an Altar that we offer gifts to Almighty God...
Jesus Is Life. your brother, Joseph

The anonymous author at Rorate Caeli must be the only Catholic in the Traditional media that doesn't believe the correction has been made & that we are now experiencing the fall-out. Dr. Lamont's article, although not timed to coincide with recent events, is on the ball.

Our Lady of Akita, Japan. All that was said is coming to pass.

Our Lady of Miraculous Medaille, Rue du Buc, Paris 1830.
Our Lady of all Nations, Amsterdam, 1945. - 1959.
Our Lady of Akita 1973.
Take a good look and see similarities of all these apparitions (messages, but also see images)
Lourdes followed Rue du Buc. Akita was clearly the confirmation of the apparition of Lady of all Nations in Amsterdam.
She is standing on the globe - Advocate
She have open arms (from which pass the grace of the Holy Spirit) - Mediatrix
She stands in front of the Cross - Coredemptrix

It seems that, for the time being, this Year of Our Lord 2017 is the Year of Facelifts. No doubt, if this trend continues throughout the year, and if it intensifies as we move closer to the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady is driving the "fumus Satanae" [the smoke of Satan] out of the Church so that the truth is revealed. This is just retribution for the failure of the Papacy to adequately consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart as Our Lady requested. I can only pray that Our Lady of Fatima, on whose feast day I was born, will be gracious enough to aid me in honouring Her more: especially by wearing the Brown Scapular and praying the Rosary, which She said were the weapons that God would use. And may Our Lady protect other loyal Catholics, and especially true and loyal Priests of the Church.

The Pope *and all the bishops of the world* together must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

On June 13, 1929, in the Presence of the Most Holy Trinity, Our Lady said to Sister Lucia (+Feb. 13, 2005):

"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.".

No Pope from Pius XI to the present has ever done this exactly as Our Lady said. Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary BUT WITHOUT the participation of all the bishops.

May the Most Holy Mother of God keep us all under Her Holy Mantle!

Margaret

P.S. Your altar and icon corner are lovely. 😇

Pope Pius XI was not well informed. His advisors read the newspapers to him. They only let him know what they wanted him to know. My understanding is that he received many letters from Sister Lucia, which he did not answer. Who knows if he ever saw them?

That is the problem. It is truly sad that even those Popes before Vatican II, for some reason, seemed to not have faith in Our Lady.

Thanks. I hope it inspired you in making your own icon corner. :D

Dear Dr John Lamont,

Congratulations on your courage to correct and expose this appalling Pope.

You might not know me under the name of Bob Smith but we did come to know each other during Sydney University Chaplaincy days.

Keep up the good fight!

I don't think it's so much a (false) notion of obedience that keeps so many prelates silent, but rather an exaggerated notion of "collegiality" that arose out of VII and the impulse to preserve at least the facade of unity amongst the Shepherds.

But when collegiality leads you to hell, to hell with collegiality.

If Dr. Lamont believes or Rorate Caeli believes Francis I is a validly and canonically elected pope , then how is it that he could be deposed if Canon law rightly asserts that the pope has no superiors on earth? The deposition of a valid canonically elected pope would be a violation of logic as well as Divine and canonical law. The only logical avenue for such deposition satisfying both Divine and Canon law is to assume that he was a heretic prior to election - and the evidence exists to support such an allegation. Cardinal Bergoglio apparently destroyed a conservative contemplative order of nuns in Buenos Aires. He also had extensive relationships with freemasons. Such heretical actions have been discussed on the internet. I presume that source citations can be found.

I agree with Saint Robert Bellarmine, If a pope is found to be a manifest heretic then those views must have been formed and existed prior to his election as pope. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia under Conclave and/or Papal election has stated that only a CATHOLIC MAN can be elected pope. The election of a non-Catholic or a woman is automatically NULL and VOID. The election of a heretic, schismatic or apostate is the election of a non-Catholic. It is an invalid election and consequently NULL and VOID.

Anyone who asserts that a valid canonically elected pope can be deposed without the voluntary resignation of the pope, is himself a heretic. If this were done it would leave the Catholic church open to rampant Protestantism, as if it hasn't had such over the past 100 years. However, a heretic imposter occupying the papal office probably can't be said to be deposed, because after all he couldn't be said to have held the office. A different term would have to be used.

The troubles we are having in the Church with Cardinals and Bishops contradicting eachother on morality is because some have fallen away from the Faith. So yes we have Cardinals and Bishops who do not teach the Catholic Faith. But they remain in their positions. So in fact we have a sea of protestants inside the Church who wish to think of themselves as Catholics. Only God knows the true number of Catholics who treasure the Faith. This protestantisation of the Church has been underway for at least 100 years. So what's a Catholic to do? Include amongst your friends real Catholics. It's a difficult time to evangelise adults because they are being fed anti Christian attitudes via mainstream media.

Prior to 1914, and the death of St. Pius X, the Catholic Church paid a great deal more attention to the orthodoxy of it's priests, bishops, cardinals, theology teachers and yes, the laity. The congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was formerly known under Pius X as the Holy Office. St. Pius X focused on Modernism as the compendium of all heretical errors in his encyclical Pascendi Dominini Gregis. And it was the job of the Holy Office and a lay group, whose name I can't remember, to police the church for modernists. They apparantly were doing a good job, along with the use of the Oath against Modernism, that Pius X developed and required of Theology teachers, that is, until the next pope, Benedict XV disbanded the group looking for modernists. The Oath against modernism was dropped, I believe, in the 1960's. In the early 20th century Msgr. Jouin spent most of his time as an sleuth looking for ecclesiastical freemasons. The point I'm trying to make is that there existed doctrinal firewalls in the early 20th century, that no longer exist. We don't have Catholic authorized groups or individuals looking for heresy in our schools, seminaries or chancelleries.

The criteria used to select a papal candidate for election is an entirely different issue. Priests or laity may fall into heresy just by exposure to a secularized protestanitized culture but a papal candidate must demonstrate that he is truly Catholic. If his actions prior to election demonstrate an indifference or a contempt for Catholic doctrines, practice and culture, then a reasonable person can assume that he holds heretical, schismatic or apostate positions. There is no room for realitivizing or giving a pass to a papal candidate regarding the practice of the faith. They have to be held to a high standard.

The men who vote in Conclave are mostly formed by the culture they grew up in and live in today. They underwent Priestly formation in good seminaries or otherwise when attitudes were strict or liberal in those institutions. I dont think any one of them would see themselves as policing a conclave and very few would agree on what kind of Pope the Church needs at any time. Pope Francis was elected to reform the Curia. That hasnt happened, or the attempts by Cardinal Pell to reform the financial side of the Curia have been stonewalled. "Mercy" as opposed to strictness, arrived in 1935 apparently as a policy decision. It's become out of balance and mercy is being shown to people who should be held accountable. But we can be peaceful that God is in charge, and if enough Catholics pray for timely intervention God will hear us and bring us out of this situation.

The pope elected must be a Catholic man, that is, he must be so by the standards of Divine law, Canonical law and even the natural law. The intentions, motivations, education, sympathies or physical health of the Cardinal electors is irrelevant. A conclave should not be a political convention. The papal criteria that count are those related to thoughts, words and actions of the papal candidate and their adherence to Catholic doctrine. His spiritual life should be of the highest order. These are objective criteria. Plans for the future change because events force us to change and adapt. In the end the most important criteria in the election of any leader are not his plans to accomplish this or that but his basic integrity, humility and reliance on Divine help.

Mary, I think you are laying out what you think should happen. What actually happens is of course entirely out of our hands.

The fact that Ecclesiastical law - and Divine law - would require a Catholic man elected,is not criteria I came up with. Those criteria have been the standard for 2000 years. On the other hand, regarding what happens in the conclaves, you are correct. It is out of our hands because the proceedings, deliberations and inputs to the cardinals are secret and are meant to be kept perpetually secret, but only since the 20th century conclaves. Prior to the 20th century conclaves proceedings, results, deliberations, etc. were all known by the faithful after the conclave concluded. The Apostolic Constituion of Pius X was promolgated in, I think, 1904,1905, January. It was held in secret until Pius X died, so no one knows what the original Constitution said. All I know is that the "Oath of a Cardinal" written by Pius X for his cardinals said nothing about secrecy at the future conclave. If secrecy had been so important and intended by Pius X then I'm sure he would have mentioned it in his Apostolic Constitution. After he died it was alleged that all Conclave proceedings were to be secret according to his Apostolic Constitution. Modern "Oaths of a Cardinal" all contain a promise to keep all events before, during and after a conclave secret. Now, why would they want to do that?

The only reason we don't have any alternatives is because we can't do what St. Bernard and St. Norbert did, seek the help of the Catholic crowned heads of Europe to install a true pope. Got an army? I sure don't. That is why we're stuck pissing and moaning on internet blogs instead of being able to actually do something about the situation.

I'm not a protestant. Catholics believe they are saved by faith and works,not by faith alone. I don't believe that Catholics should only pray and witness. We're called to do penance and mortify ourselves, that is why I fast and correspond with people I do not agree with on internet blogs. I need the thinking practice. With regard to the situation in Rome, I believe that a great deal more could be done by the laity lobbying. We do have economic clout and should coalese to use that to promote and/or coerce proximate cooperation with the faith of the magisterium of the church on the part of our leaders.

Ah, yeah, sure. We were discussing the pope. You made the statement that this isn't about you or me or kings or armies but about God alone, which implies God alone will determine future events and we pray, and witness, like spectators. Sorry, I just don't hold that view. I have to make egg rolls right now, or I'm going to be fired. If you were in the neighborhood I'd invite you over.

I've had this conversation with my mother before. I don't agree with her, nor with you. Yes, this is God's world, yes we do what He permits us to do but with our conscience, our knowledge and our resources we have a right and a responsibility to act as His arms, His legs, His mouth, His eyes and His ears in this world and in His church. We will be judged on our adherence to His laws, Divine and Ecclesiastical and natural at the end of our lives. Yes, martyrdom and sacrifice will be part of it, but a great deal more could be done by the laity to make it clear to our clerical hierarchy that we will not support them financially if they do not return to the proximate magisterium as it had been in the era of Pope St. Pius X.

My priest spoke up in his homily last Sunday and said that the Roman Catholic Church teachings cannot be undone by the Pope, bishops, President or anyone ekse. He is unafraid to speak out. I hope the bishops, archbishop and cardinals follow his example.

I was wondering if a pope could lose his title. I am glad to know that if a pope were a heretic before becoming pope that he is illicit. I hope that Cardinal Burke and other like-minded officials have the courage to follow this route.

There were many periods of multiple popes in Catholic history. Thankfully, most of them were for only short periods of time. Unfortunately, they caused oodles of confusion, even for saints. So, who was the real pope? If all the popes are Catholic men, that is, have faith in the magisterium and do not hold heretical views, then the canonical process needs to be looked at. Was the pope claimant, elected according to canonical process? Was he the first to be elected? etc. I know what you're saying to me, but Mary we only have one pope, yes, but the same questions have to be asked even for one pope. If a pope is not Catholic or is a pseudo-man prior to election, then this would null and void his/her election automatically. Technically, it is not taking office and jurisdiction from an elected pope, because he was never validly elected to the office of pope. So it is a matter of taking from a usurper/imposter what is not his to have.

Cardinal Burke is far better educated than I am in theology, history and canon law. I am sure he knows all of this and more. He also has to traverse a dangerous political landscape with few resources. He can't call up the marines from Venice to back him up, or the knights of Malta, that's why he has to take cautious half steps.

Kudos on your parish priest. The future will be difficult for those of us labeled as "dissenters".

If the pope has been formally corrected, the question is why does he continue to deny the essence of Trinitarian Love?

"Let Us Make man to Our Image and Likeness."

God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. Love is trinitarian. (Filioque)

God Exists in an ordered communion of Perfect Complementary Love thus we can know through both Faith and reason that Catholics and Muslims do not worship the same God.

It is important to note that denying the Sanctity of the marital act, and thus the fact that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, is apostasy, not heresy.

"It should be noted that the anonymous Rorate author who introduces the piece strongly rejects the truth of the rumor that the Pope has already been formally corrected. However, he does not explain why he believes this."

I think from what Pope Francis had done from Epiphany onward explained us of his argument.

I don't know how I can feared that the Anti-Church goes off with whole the physical Rome.