In some of the discussions I’ve been having subsequent to the post that went nuclear, there have been certain allegations of this or that thing that I must believe because of what I am saying. Then people argue with me based on those things, instead of anything that I actually believe.
There’s little I dislike more than when people tell me what I am thinking. Especially when I’m not thinking those things.
So, I’d like to address a few items:
On the Question of Papal Criticism
I hear it all the time these days: “Are you more Catholic than the pope? Who are you to criticize him? The Holy Spirit picked the pope, and I trust God!!!”
God does not pick the pope. The college of cardinals does. (And this includes men like Kasper and Mahoney and Danneels, etc.) There is nothing in Catholic teaching to even indicate this. On the contrary, we have no less an authority than a certain Cardinal-who-became-pope, Joseph Ratzinger, on this very topic (from NCR/John Allen):
Perhaps the classic expression of this idea belongs to none other than the outgoing pope, Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected. This was his response:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
Then the clincher:
“There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
Secondly, even a pope is not above criticism. St. Catherine of Sienna certainly knew that when she was trying to encourage her own pontiff (Gregory XI) to man up and leave Avignon to come back to Rome. She wrote:
“Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” Later in her letter she continued, “Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!”
Of course, it was a good deal easier to get the pope to read your letters back then. (I’ve never had a pope respond to my emails or tweets. Nor do I expect one to.)
Though not by name, Dante went so far as to put Pope Celestine V in hell. (Anecdotally, it is believed that he wrote him into the Inferno because he abdicated — the last pope to do so before Benedict XVI — and his abdication cleared the path for Boniface VIII, who Dante was not so fond of.)
Personal correspondence and literary condemnations are two forms of papal criticism which were appropriate for their times. But theologians knew it as well. The 16th century yields us this pearl of wisdom:
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations”
– Fr. Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent.
Of course, if you want to go all the way back to the beginning, Paul rebuked Peter “to the face”.
You get my point. It’s not unprecedented to be critical of a pope. And I would argue that our situation is really quite unique. Unlike any time in history, a man’s words can reach the four corners of the Earth instantaneously. We live in a very public world, and this papacy has found global resonance through the megaphone of our massive media apparatus.
This means that when the pope says something erroneous — or something that leads people to an erroneous conclusion, even if it’s not what he’s really saying — it spreads like wildfire. One needn’t change the doctrines of the Church to convince people that they’ve been changed. And really, all that matters in practical terms is the convincing. That’s what prompts changes in behavior and belief.
Because of this, it would seem that those Catholics who know their faith well enough to detect the problems have an obligation to speak up and to make sure that errors, perceived or real, are clearly refuted somewhere. Even if it’s somewhere as lowly as a blog or a Facebook post, it tends to get seen by at least a few folks who might need to know. Evangelization happens the same way: one soul at a time. You might tell a thousand people about your beliefs and only one converts. That’s effort well spent. In the same way, it seems only right that we help our fellow Catholics (especially those who are not as well catechized) to know that they should be on the lookout for certain errors, even from the highest prelates of the Church. Pope Francis and his inner circle have been saying enough that is, if not outright wrong, close enough to being wrong that it distorts the truth. Unless we know to turn up our filters, we may well imbibe some of that ourselves.
All of this doesn’t make me very popular in a faith filled with people who believe that orthodoxy and papistry are synonymous. It really is understandable that many would have reached the conclusion that something just shy of papolatry is the hallmark of faithful sons of the Church. In the turmoil that followed the Second Vatican Council, the only rock in the storm was the rock of St. Peter. Still high on the relatively-new doctrine of papal infallibility, the person of the pope became seen as the beacon of divinely-protected truth in the theological darkness and confusion. Clinging to him was safe. Defending him typically meant you were staring down someone who was no friend of Christ.
But like the Novus Ordo, the reverence of which is almost entirely dependent upon the personal piety of the celebrant, this false equivalence between ultramontanism and orthodoxy depends entirely on the character of the man on Peter’s throne. Put a Cardinal Mahoney in the papacy and suddenly everything is different. (And let’s remember that Cardinal Mahoney was specifically told to vote in the conclave, so he had his say, and he is a noted Francis fan.) Being put in this position leaves reflexive papists floundering. What do you do when you believe being a good Catholic means defending every word and action of the pope, but the pope starts doing or saying things you’re not sure you should defend? Bit of a quandry, that. It makes people cranky.
So it’s also not surprising that someone insinuated I (or at least the kind of people who would write what I wrote) needed to be told:
“[T]o claim that there is no valid pope or that Vatican II was an invalid council or that the sacraments celebrated according to the current missal as invalid is heresy and schism. And all the more satanically ironic for the fact that it’s people who claim to take a very strict view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus who are putting themselves outside of that very Church.”
I respond:
Now of course a case could be made, (cf. Bellarmine) that a pope who embraces heresy excommunicates himself and thus no longer has a valid office. It has always been theoretical, and popes who have done things along these lines have usually for various reasons been later discovered to be antipopes.
Canon law does come to bear:
“Canon 1325, §. 2 of the 1917 Code stated: “If a baptized person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy,” and Canon 2314, § 1 stated: “Such a person automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.” (1) These two articles are still in force in the new and concessive 1983 Code (cc. 751, 1364).”
It is historically true that there have been antipopes; it is also theoretically possible that a reigning pope could, by attempting to teach heresy, vacate his own seat. I haven’t gone so far as to suggest that, but I do feel strongly that Francis is testing those waters. (Whether formally or only materially is up for debate.)
But as I recently said to a sedevacantist I was arguing with, “Even if he’s not the real pope, it’s outside our competence to judge him so. Only a successor to St. Peter can.”
This is important. We can and should be critical of and resist what’s being said and done that we believe is wrong; we can personally not like the man who holds the office; we can even privately believe he’s a raging heretic if that’s where our research leads us. But until another vicar of Christ says otherwise, Pope Francis is the pope. My pope. Your pope. Full stop. We owe him our prayers, and we owe our assent to any authoritative teaching he makes.
On to the second point: I don’t make the case that Vatican II was an invalid council; I do think it was a damaging and unnecessary council. Pope Paul VI conceded that it was pastoral council. It introduced nothing new to the deposit of faith, and was only dogmatic where and when it reaffirmed existing dogma. It’s non-essential, and problematic, and its dangerous ambiguities could be addressed and corrected by a subsequent council. Just for clarity’s sake, let’s trot out the well-worn quotes:
Pope Benedict XVI (while Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) clearly stated the nature of the Second Vatican Council was pastoral, as the council defined no doctrine infallibly, and sought to maintain a lower profile than previous ecumenical councils….
The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVIgiven July 13, 1988, in Santiago, ChileThis echoes the words of Pope Paul VI, who concluded the Second Vatican Council, and also stated it was purely pastoral in nature, having not applied the “note of infallibility” to any particular document….
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.
Pope Paul VIGeneral Audience, 12 January 1966
Third point: I don’t make the case that the sacraments celebrated according to the current missal are invalid (though it can more easily occur because of the loss of structure and ease of improvisation in the new rubrics, as well as the general loss of belief in the real presence among priests, which could nullify intent). I instead find that the validity of the new Mass is precisely what makes it so problematic: it can’t simply be dismissed as an abuse, so it instead lingers as a Trojan horse for a protestantized anthropology of worship, horizontalism where there should be verticality, and an intentional diminishment of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. Like tainted water, it paradoxically both nourishes and makes us sick.
Now, people do make compelling arguments in favor of all these positions I don’t actually hold. Compelling, but not convincing. Sedevacantism, for example, is a dead end, but they do their homework. Some of them are very nice people, but I get the feeling sometimes that they’ve crossed the line from sanity into a terrible, hopeless world from which they see no exit. Never get in a prooftexting fight with a sede. As Chesterton wrote:
If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.
The final charge that I will deal with is this: the assumption that if not a sedevacantist-in-the-making, I must at least be in schism. Which for most mainstream Catholics is synonymous with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
The truth is, in my ten years of “traditionalism” I have never darkened the doorstep of an SSPX chapel, let alone any of the independent ones. It is important to me to maintain visible continuity with the Church, and insofar as the Church has maintained access to her own tradition, however sparsely, I see no reason to change that.
That said, the SSPX are really not that problematic other than (at least in my experience) their grumpiness; there is not an authentic Catholic teaching to which they do not adhere, and (depending on what week it is or who you talk to at the Vatican) they are aren’t it’s so confusing might or might not be in actual schism. Personally, I strongly dislike their opinion that disobedience to a sovereign pontiff was the only way to accomplish God’s will and retain what is sacred. I think that bespeaks a lack of trust in their own argument: that God wants the Tradition of his Church preserved. If He does (and I believe it) He’ll provide a way that doesn’t involve a direct violation of the orders of the Church’s supreme legislator. (All of that being said, I am growing increasingly sympathetic to their position. There are times when obedience demands too much, and we are never bound to violate our conscience out of obligation to a superior.)
So there you have it. Just saying that you’re “Catholic” these days means very little, considering the diversity of belief within the Church. There are lots of labels floating around, but there are subcategories even within those. I think it’s important to make my positions on these things clear. I believe it’s possible to be highly critical of what is happening within the Church without ever stepping outside of the Church to do so, and still recognizing the authority structures that exist. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, but it’s doable.
Highly recommended —
The Darkness of Faith, and the Light of Return – James Larson
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/48
Steve,
I found your arguments here incredibly calm, sane and, above all, Catholic.
On some other websites I have encountered some hysteria that is not really helpful.
Pope Francis alarms me in several ways but I must put my final trust in God. Our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church and we must believe that in faith.
How we deal with a “loose cannon” Pope, well I don’t know; but I do know that pretending everything is fine is simply not cutting it.
I liked most of what Michael Voris said on the Vortex, but his view that any criticism of the Pope is absolutely verboten is head in the sand and, I believe, ultimately won’t work. The Pope is saying and doing too many things that are capable is misinterpretation by both Catholics and non Catholics. Someone has to say something.
These are truly dark times and lots of prayer is needed.
Thank you, Paul. I think that sanity is always our best option, even if it isn’t the only one. I catch flack from people who don’t see the distinction between me telling people something is giving me the creeps and running screaming through the streets in a panic about it, reaching who knows what conclusions.
Sometimes, things worry us, even (or especially) if we can’t explain quite why. Doesn’t mean we can’t be grownups about it.
Steve, you are truly a fountain in the desert…thank you for your words and their eloquent expression. I would only quibble with one thing you said above….
“…that God wants the Tradition of his Church preserved. If He does (and I believe it) He’ll provide a way that doesn’t involve a direct violation of the orders of the Church’s supreme legislator.”
I think it could be reasonably argued that S. Athanasius did exactly that (heck, you don’t get exiled 5 times by the pope with doing that). He stood for the Truth of Christ, against the pope; indeed against the world, and today we don’t mention his name without it’s preface…….SAINT..
Did anyone ever decide if old Pope Liberius (if memory serves, it was him, right?) came down on the side of condemning St. Athanasius? I thought I had read somewhere along the way that people did some things acting in his name, but that he never embraced the Arian position or condemned the patron saint of standing up for the truth come hell or high water.
I never took the time to really study the situation, so I honestly don’t know.
You pretty much nailed my thoughts on this as well.
Did anyone ever decide if old Pope Liberius (if memory serves, it was him, right?) came down on the side of condemning St. Athanasius?
“…read the articles on “Liberius” (especially the section titled “Forged Letters”) and “Infallibility” in the 1910, 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. I will only summarize its basic arguments:
1) The “letters” of Pope Liberius mentioning a condemnation of St. Athanasius are almost certainly forgeries.
2) Before he was sent into exile (for refusing to capitulate to the Arians) by the Emperor Constantius, Pope Liberius was, along with Bishop Hosius, one of the two greatest defenders of St. Athanasius; after his exile he was again a great fighter against this heresy. After his exile, the Catholics of Rome revolted against the Arian anti-pope Felix and received Liberius back in triumph. There is absolutely no evidence of any confession of having fallen, no recantation, no atonement on the part of Pope Liberius. Pope St. Anastasius I (401) mentions him with Dionysius, Hilary, and Eusebius as one of those who would have died rather than blaspheme Christ with the Arians.
3) Considering his actions both before and after his exile and alleged “fall,” any actions taken against the Faith or against St. Athanasius during his exile could have only been occasioned by excessive coercion and fear. This would have deprived any such actions of the moral freedom necessary for truly human acts (an elementary principle of moral theology), and thus certainly the necessary qualifications for a true papal “declaration of excommunication.” Interestingly enough this point of moral theology is made in Vatican II’s treatment of the Papal Primacy: that decisions of the Pope, in order to be binding on the minds and wills of the faithful, must be to his “manifest mind and intention, which is made known either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated (Lumen Gentium, 24).” Even though St. Athanasius believed that Liberius had fallen (the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that he received his information from St. Jerome who, according to the same article, is noted for historical inaccuracies), it was this great Saint (Athanasius) himself who absolved Pope Liberius of any moral responsibility by saying that Liberius gave way “for fear of threatened death” and “for what men are forced to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those in fear, but rather of their tormentors.” St. Athanasius knew the clear history of Pope Liberius’ valiant defense of the faith against Arianism before he was arrested, taken into exile, and possibly tortured. He therefore knew that the “manifest mind and will” of the Pope was against Arianism and in support of his own bishopric.”
Part X:The War Against the Papacy – James Larson
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/50
Thanks. That explains in very helpful detail what I was wondering. That James Larson fellow is very thorough, isn’t he?
I’ve never been disappointed in the time spent reading Larson’s articles…very helpful material on a number of fronts.
btw – mark me down as another one who had a very unexpected negative reaction when Francis appeared on the Loggia. He has definitely proven to be an enigma or better yet Jesuitical.
Keep up the good work….you speak for many.
My apologies to Liberius.
And perhaps, there is some light today; this actually sounds quite Catholic….
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/finally-an-orthodox-pope/
Good news indeed….and praise God! “…for nothing shall be impossible with God.”
Well, there’s a first time for everything!
However, today is what day again? As Mundabor acknowledged. Sigh…
Yeah. I’ve been too busy today to reflect on the tradition of silliness. Didn’t even see it coming. (Though I admit, I was surprised at the quote.)
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/aprils-fool-2/
NO! NO! NOOOOOOO!
awww jeeeeeeeeeeze…..(sigh)
Agreed on all four points you wrote about. Just letting you know for your own sanity’s sake. =)
Thanks. It’s good to have reassurance on that front. 😉
Steve, The fruits of the “Francis effect” are a cacophony.
I am seeing (presumably) sound Catholics either falling into vision questing to determine the nature of this pontificate or some, disturbed by the spirit of heterodoxy who began by questioning with constructive criticism, have now begun chasing their own tails and announcing that maybe Michael Voris was right to put on the blinders. It’s a sad display, The fruits are very divisive. I appreciate that you are taking a balanced and realistic approach to what is happening before our eyes.
I was told today that I “posted a rambling 10k word paranoid apocalyptica illustrated with photos of Rome burning …” so I must clearly lack credibility.
I’m trying to get along with everyone of good will, but it’s fascinating how many different takes on this there can be.
Steve, We love your writing and clear thinking. Many Catholics are mystified by what we are witnessing in our church and in our society at large, that our church seems to be falling right in line with, magnified greatly by this Pontificate. Many suggest patience and of course prayer, and some suggest blind submission, which for me conjures up a “Pied Piper” type of vision, which this article does a wonderful job of dispelling…thank you. It is not sinful to question the antics of a Pope!
Now that said, most of the publications, blogs, discussions, about Pope Francis stop short of addressing the “800 pound Gorilla” in the room that clearly explains through centuries of prophecy, precisely what we are living through in these days. Dr. Kelly Bowring, whom I am proud to call a friend, has written a very compelling, yet respectful and charitable article titled: “What to do if Francis is the False Prophet” which can be found at his website:
http://twoheartspress.com/blog/how-to-respond-if-pope-francis-is-the-false-prophet-2/#more-1544
This article in my opinion, goes a long way towards connecting the dots, and/or “cracking the code” of what is going on and why. Kelly has impeccable and significant credentials, and has written this article at great personal risk. It has already received significant attention and reaction both positive and negative, but if one truly takes the time to read the article carefully and prayerfully, and then does one’s own research, its hard to not agree with his premise.
As to your comment about “different takes”…its so ironic that this Pontificate has divided our church in half, but not in the manner one would expect. I found this comment from someone else, and do not take credit for it myself..I just forgot where I saw it, but it sums up what I am trying to say:
“The fighting that has set in among faithful, obedient Catholics is deeply troubling, and is evidence enough of the problem. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The hallmark of the current pontificate is division — not between those on one end of the ideological spectrum or the other, but between the kind of folks who should be running in the same circles. Pro-life, pro-family, pro-Church teaching, rosary-praying, Catechism-reading, politically conservative Catholics. In the ever-shrinking group of the faithful who should be on the same team, fault lines are busting out all over.”
God Bless you and your family Steve, and Come Lord Jesus!
Steve J.
Wisconsin
I forgot to list Dr. Kelly Bowring’s bio:
He received his Masters in Theology and Christian Ministry, with advanced certification in catechetics, from Franciscan University of Steubenville, his licentiate in Sacred Theology from Dominican House of Studies (and the John Paul II Institute) in Washington D.C., and his Pontifical Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He has received the Theological Mandatum to teach theology. He previously taught theology and directed an institute at St. Mary’s College of Ave Maria University, and he has been a professor of Sacred Theology at Southern Catholic College, where he was the Dean of Spiritual Mission and oversaw the Theology program. He also served as Dean of the “Graduate School of Theology (GST) at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary. He and his wife, Diana, have eight children.
Atsa, thank you for the link to this exceptional article. That does it for me.
I keep telling myself, both in what is going on politically in the USA and what is going on in the church, that what I am seeing can’t possibly be happening.
But, it is happening. It is time to face facts.
Please, let us all pray for one another. Things won’t be improving anytime soon; rather, they will be getting much worse, and it is important that we keep one another in prayer.
Steve, it is a great grace to have found this blog, and it is also an answer to my prayers. God bless you!
I did some research on this and I retract my post above.
There is something not right in all of this.
You got that quote from me. 😉
I look forward to reading that other article.
Well, there you go! I knew it was from some impeccable source, which was why I saved it!
Steve
That article…I swear I did not read it before writing mine. It is literally chilling (I have them running up my spine right now) how closely what I wrote and what Dr. Browning wrote align. I’m kind of speechless right now.
Between that article and the one your wrote, what more can be said? That Dr. Bowring has a few degrees in Theology along with a licentiate to teach Theology……
Simple typo: Bowring vs Browning. There is quite a significant “kindred spirit” network amassing strength and numbers Steve. I believe in my heart it is the beginnings of what can only be described as a “Remnant Army” that has eyes and ears opened by the Grace of God. My wife and I have had quite a remarkable past 12 months. I truly do not want to or intend to become a disruptive force on your blog, but one of the visionaries that Kelly Bowring referenced in his recent article and his books shared a “message” she received from Jesus on 3/5/11, long before either Benedict’s “resignation” or Francis’s pontificate. Here is a portion of that message:
“Ask everyone to pray for My beloved Holy Vicar Pope Benedict, for he is surrounded by the enemies of My Eternal Father. Pray for the priests who have never wavered in their faith to Me or My Eternal Father.
Rise of the false prophet…
They need to pray hard now, as the outcome of this attack on My Holy Vicar will be witnessed by you all. Pray, pray, pray that the false prophet will be identified for what he is. Watch out for his demeanor. His attention seeking agenda, the way in which My misguided sacred servants will drop in awe at his feet. Then listen to what he has to say, carefully. His humility will be false, his intentions mischievous and the love he exudes will be all about him. He will be seen as being innovative, dynamic – a breath of fresh air. While he is driven and energetic, his powers will not come from God the Eternal Father. They come from Satan, the evil one.”
I can’t tell you how many times I have heard the description “breath of fresh air” when referencing Francis these past months. Pray for Dr. Kelly Bowring and his family, and for any of us who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. God Bless You all.
Steve J
Wisconsin
Kelly Bowring is a very sloppy scholar – http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/2014/03/profiting-from-false-prophet-strange.html
That article was written when the guy would not reply to Facebook comments posted by Tim Stuart – he just deleted them and blocked Tim. That tells you a lot about his ‘credentials’ as a theologian.
He is accusing Pope Francis of creating division? That’s laughable! He himself turned into a ‘Maria Divine Mercy’ follower – she’s another false visionary and yet Bowring has joined MDM Facebook groups and speaks at their meetings when invited.
To gain publicity he had a press release published
abnewswire.com/pressreleases/pope-francis-may-be-the-false-prophet-of-revelation-according-to-prophecy-says-catholic-theologian_9546.html
mainly Protestant outlets picked it up… really Bowring?
I’m not going to go around and around in circles on this. I’ve continuously explained that I view these things with cautious interest insofar as they support some of my own suspicions. I do not submit them as true, only for the consideration of discerning Catholics who are concerned about the same things I am.
Vatican I, from my reading, says nothing that creates any impossibility of an antipope sitting on the throne. In fact, it would be impossible for this to happen, because there have been many antipopes in the past. What it does is declare with doctrinal certainty that no actual, valid pope will teach error to the faithful.
No real Catholic disputes this. Using this, however, as a refutation of the theory that a false prophet could be masquerading as a real pope is just…well it makes no sense at all. We’re talking apples and oranges here.
Yehuddit, on what authority do you have it, to claim that MDM or anyone for that matter is a “false visionary”? The fact that MDM immediately attracts the naysayers, quick to judge and condemn, validates their authenticity even more, for me. Thank you Jesus for speaking to us in these times.
I was told that it was ‘speculation’ but I didn’t see any rash conclusions in it, just helpful information and possibilities. One had to read all of it.
Donald McClarey was focused on the ‘end-times’ discussion but he still called it, “a very intriguing essay and well worth the reading.” He is a clear-headed guy who’s not afraid to shine a light, or to learn something.
When we look honestly at the souls of men and their suffering, they reveal dysfunction in the Church – heresy in praxis. Your piece puts the source for the world’s current darkness at the foot of the Church where it belongs. It’s not apocalyptic to say so.
The Church has always been the ‘agent’ in salvation history, not the object or victim of the times. People make the world an excuse, as if it had not always been the enemy. In one sense they are right to fault it though, because the world today has unprecedented leverage in Rome.
I have a lot of thoughts, but wanted to thank you for having the courage to write with clarity and fearlessness. So few Catholics are willing to do this and risk the inevitable wrath. I suspect others, who seem very concerned about weak Catholics, may be suffering an incipient crisis of faith themselves.
“I’m trying to get along with everyone of good will,”
Ha!!!!….never gonna happen my friend. I taught one year of 4th grade in a Catholic school in a very sound diocese, and on parent’s night expressed what I saw my mandate to be…that I would teach their children science and math and social studies, but that my main purpose for being there was to help their kids become Saints; to learn, grow in, and love the Faith. You can’t imagine the firestorm that swept through the field behind my back by a small but determined group of outraged parents….they saw my remarks as “too religious”. When I bought (with my own funds) entire sets of Mary Fabyan Wyndeatt Saints books on the lives of the Saints for each child in the class (you see these in every Catholic store and venue) to teach reading from (the reading books they had were awful; Houghton-Mifflin with many things in them that were anti-Christian), well….the dam burst. One mother screamed at me in a meeting that “those books are evil!”, after having told her 9 year old son that St. Therese was “a big weirdo”. Needless to say the administration took this woman’s part and forbid me to teach out of any of those marvelous books. FORBID me to use excellent children’s books on the lives of the Saints in a Catholic school (!) It was one of the most brutal years of my life (as this episode was only the start); but it was also one of the most grace filled periods I’ve ever experienced (my husband came into the Church that year after having seen the worst of the WORST of her human side). God always showers the graces necessary to the mission, and I fully trust that the seed spread that year will yield good fruit.
If you’re not taking fire for your positions, even from quarters you would least expect it, you probably aren’t speaking the Truth or standing firmly enough in witness for Christ. You write with a gift, and you write as a reasoned, polite, thoughtful gentleman. Your words will be distorted and mis-stated (I saw it happen at another site and its comment stream just a few days ago to an extreme level); you will be calumniated and belittled; you will be excoriated and called a nut. “Rejoice…again I say, rejoice!”…that’s when you know you’re doing something very right, and the last beatitude is yours. Keep writing the words of Truth with a clear conscience and a heart full of good will….many hearts will be moved closer to Christ; many others will bear their fangs and tear at your ‘flesh’….thus was the reaction to Our Lord, to His blessed Apostles, and to every true disciple of His who dares to place the light given him on a post.
I’m very glad I found this blog, and I thank you for your magnificent writing. You are a buoy to many, especially in these confused times when so many are losing their way.…don’t let the detractors get you down. Their derision is your sign of election…not of your doing, but of the One who works within you and calls you to a mighty work in His Name. God bless you, and God bless the work of your hands. Psalm 43(42) & Romans 8:28
Lorra, you wrote: “I did some research on this and I retract my post above. There is something not right in all of this.”
Would you care to elaborate? I’d be very interested to hear what’s bothering you.
Steve, I do not know you or Lorra, and likewise, you do not know me. I expected a response like this from Lorra, or somebody else, which of course was why I suggested that I truly did not want to disrupt your wonderful blog. I have been down this road before, but my research and prayerful discernment and spiritual guidance regarding “all of this” has gone much further than what appears to be a googlesearch to uncover something unsavory about a good man, Dr. Kelly Bowring. Reach out to Dr. Bowring yourself and speak to him before you dismiss him and his entire credibility, based upon those who refuse to accept that we are in fact living in times that have been prophesied about for centuries. God Bless you. This is not about an attack on the church. Follow your heart.
Don’t worry about disruption. In pursuit of the truth, I’ll agree with Pope Francis: Hagan Lio! (Make a mess!)
Actually, if yuo have Dr. Bowring’s contact info, please send it to me. I would like to reach out to him. I’m at skojec (at) gmail (dot) com.
I did some research on Dr. Bowring and also the alleged locutions (or whatever) of “Maria Divine Mercy”.
http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/
Anything that is pushing me away from the Church cannot be good. I went down this road once before in the eighties, and I crawled back to the Church a few years ago. As trite as this might sound, I will lose nothing by putting my trust and confidence in Our Lord that He truly meant it when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
Someone posted a comment in your other thread to the effect that humility is a good shield. I would add obedience to that. The two things that turned Satan out of Heaven were his pride and disobedience.
We have the assurance from the First Vatican Council that the Church will always have popes. It is inconceivable to me that Our Lord would allow a pope to sit in the Chair of Peter who would lead trusting Catholics astray in faith and morals.
Finally, anything that starts to cause me unrest and anxiety could never come from the Holy Spirit.
Steve, I hope this answers your question. Please be careful. I know from experience what a slippery slope it is.
Lorra,
I’m a big fan of following instincts, so I encourage you to do exactly that. I have to say, I’m not convinced of the veracity of those revelations, but I’d have a bigger problem with that if they were the only piece of the puzzle. Instead, I admit to being intrigued by her alleged prediction of Pope Benedict’s abdication.
As for obedience, having read Dr. Bowring’s entire article, I don’t see how there’s a problem. He writes:
This seems reasonable to me. He’s not advocating outright disobedience, and elsewhere in the post he acknowledges, “due to our required obedience to the Magisterium, we cannot decide exclusively for ourselves whether he is in heresy and thus invalid. We must wait until the Church’s otherwise highest authority (like Pope Emeritus Benedict) declares it so and presents the clearest evidence.”
He seems to be on solid ground. So I’ll listen, unless and until he starts saying something that sets my alarms off. I respect that you have chosen not to do so. Discernment in all of this is critical.
We are warned that the antichrist will assume power for 42 months in the Apocalypse. Private, Church-Approved, revelation (Our Lady of Good Counsel, Our Lady of Lasallete, and a whole bunch of Canonized and Beatified mystics as well..) reveal that the last great Pope, the greatest Pope after Peter, Peter Romanus, will be killed by the great excrement, to convince the world he is worthy of the adulation due The See of Peter as well as the adoration due God. If some reprobate Cardinals elect him as much, I can see v-2. neo-catholics, immediately upon said sulphuric stench shoving the white yamaka between his horns, frothing in “charismatic” seizures, and getting defensive with criticisms at the newest pontiff’s inability to get his hooves into any decent pair of papal shoes! Less any such criticism make a soul guilty of being more Catholic than the… VIVO CHRISTO REY!!! =+)
Steve,
Since most of the responses have been supportive of your position, I offer the following with respect. Have you ever considered that the Holy Spirit is in charge of the Church and the popes we have had since Vatican II are exactly the popes He wants? I don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between Francis and his predecessors. They all engaged in inter-religious dialog, ecumenism, inculturation, etc. In fact, Blessed JPII was probably more active in this regard. Ever see some of the masses JPII celebrated in the 3rd world?
We’ve had 50+ years of the same type of Pope(maybe more depending on how “liberal” you think Pope Pius XI and XII were). That’s an awful long time for it to be a mere coincidence.
But maybe the Pope should call the trads bluff. Maybe he should require EVERY diocese in the western world to offer one tridentine mass each Sunday and at said mass have the priest announce that anyone contracepting is not to come forward to receive communion as they are in an objective state of mortal sin. Then he should post the attendance and collection plate revenues for that mass. Let’s see what happens.
Willard,
Of course I’ve considered that. It was my default position all the way through school and my studies in theology in college. I became “traditionalist” (aka: more fully Catholic) in my attempts to defend the post-conciliar Church from traditionalist arguments, and finding myself persuaded otherwise in the process.
I don’t know what God wants vs. what He allows by His permissive will. I only know that the manifest damage that has been wrought by popes who have subscribed, in varying degrees, to the modernism that Pope St. Piux X warned about, is manifest in the near-total desolation of the Catholic faith in today’s world. They have not slowed the decline. In my opinion, they have accelerated it. I am not here to argue about the validity of the papacy of any pope in the past 50 years. I assume that they were all valid. It doesn’t change my opinion of what they have done.
As for your supposed bluff-calling, it’s a completely unserious argument. You can’t decimate liturgy and Catholic faith for half a century then throw things into reverse at full speed and expect immediate adoption. It took me a long time before I could actually see the old Mass for what it was. The first few times I went, it was so alien that I hated it.
The Novus Ordo is, for all intents and purposes, the anti-TLM. It creates massive psychological barriers to the Church’s most long-standing form of worship. These won’t be overcome quickly.
That said, go to any established TLM at any diocese in the world, and you’ll see a growing community. In many cases, an overflowing one. I’ve been to plenty of packed TLMs, and not a few that were standing room only.
I read some time ago that Mari Loli , one of the visionaries of Garabandal, said in an interview that the Warning experience (The Great Illumination of Conscience) would follow a Synod of Bishops where the church would be thrown into turmoil.I can certainly see that possibility now with this planned synod on the family in October.
Garabandal is the MOST CONDEMNED apparition in history of the Church. Please read here: http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Garabandal2.html God Bless You! It’s not your fault entirely, sir. The v-2ers purposefully drained the Church of authentic mysticism, and because our souls long for union with God, we are susceptible to the various false/occult frauds that hell perpetuates, even those with Catholic veneers. I was taken in, too. St. Michael The Archangel, defend us in battle.. =+)
Thanks Steve, I really like what you have said in this article and feel you’ve articulated how I, along with many other Catholics, view the present situation in the Church. You’re sane, balanced and orthodox. Keep up the clear thinking and good writing.
Steve,
What do you make of the Good Friday intercessory prayers for the Holy Father, which state that God chose him (the pope at the time)?
My immediate thought is that it’s a nice sentiment but in no way doctrinal. Do you have a link and/or context so I can look at it?
http://www.icelweb.org/musicfolder/openpdf.php?file=GoodFriday2.pdf
I wrote a bunch of stuff, but my kid shut off the power strip under my desk before I could finish.
I don’t feel like re-writing it all, so suffice it to say: this is taken from the Novus Ordo, where they make up prayers out of whole cloth. There is nothing in actual Church teaching that indicates the pope is chosen by God. If God will it at all, it’s by permissive will.
There is simply no other way to explain the terrible popes.
I’ve seen the argument made that terrible popes are a punishment, in a sense, a means of chastisement, and so are chosen by God, but the implications and meaning of the reign of a terrible pope would therefore be different – contrary in fact – to that which supporters of terrible popes would hold. They would see it as a “finally!” moment of liberation, as many are currently.
What I personally do not understand is to what extent we should be obedient to a pope, any pope. I do not want to be a minimalist but also do not want to put my trust in princes in vain.