The New York Times, a.k.a. "Hell's Bible" reveals to us the betrayal by Gänswein, Marini

If it were already not enough of a scandal that Timothy Dolan participated in the abomination, sacrilege and blasphemy which took place in New York City now the New York Times reveals the backstory.

Gänswein (who has previously welcomed "gay" couples to the Vatican and ushered them in to see the Bishop of Rome) and Marini, Papa Ratzinger's Secretary and Master of Ceremonies were both involved and responsible.

They are traitors, puffed up in finery. They are filthy frauds.

This is how bad it is friends; that even those whom we thought were the good guys turn out to be just as rotten and filthy effing scum as the rest.

They betrayed Papa Ratzinger and they betrayed us.

I find it impossible to pray for their conversion. I leave their judgement to God.

By Jason Horowitz

May 3, 2018

VATICAN CITY — Archbishop Georg Gänswein said yes to the dress.

The dashing former right-hand man to Benedict XVI, the fashion-plate pope, he is now prefect of the papal household under the more austere Pope Francis. In May 2017, Archbishop Gänswein sat in his stately Apostolic Palace office as Andrew Bolton, curator in charge of the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, showed him a look book of couture masterpieces that Mr. Bolton felt matched with certain Vatican treasures.

Archbishop Gänswein, in a soutane with purple sash, indifferently flipped pages of designer frocks until he lingered on a luxurious Madame Grès dress inspired by a Franciscan habit.  

“They all love that,” Mr. Bolton said of the dress.

The archbishop gradually became enthusiastic as he and Mr. Bolton discussed the role of beauty in the church and Mr. Bolton explained his vision for the project that would explore the way the Catholic church had served as an inspiration to designers through the centuries. Then things really started rolling.

Mr. Bolton received authorization from senior Vatican officials to borrow the vestments. He was also granted full access to the Sistine Chapel Sacristy and became so close with its custodian priests in his 10 trips to Rome that they entrusted him with the hidden chamber’s keys and opened secret doors, behind which elderly nuns ironed the pope’s white vestments. 

Gänswein, Papa Ratzinger's Prison Warden

The show that would ultimately become “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination,” the biggest exhibit the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum has ever held, opening May 10, was on the verge of becoming a reality.

It was the culmination of years of negotiations, two stalled visits to Rome, and walking the tightrope between Anna Wintour, the powerful editor of Vogue and a Met trustee, and the many powers in the Vatican.

While the Vatican may be enthusiastic about “Heavenly Bodies” now, it took years for it to warm to an exhibit that Mr. Bolton first envisioned as including many religious traditions. Dealing with one church proved to be enough.

In June 2016, a colleague of Mr. Bolton’s in the Met’s European paintings department put him in touch with Arnold Nesselrath, a Vatican museum curator. Mr. Nesselrath arranged for Mr. Bolton to visit the Sistine Chapel Sacristy, a chamber of rooms within rooms containing a hive of numbered wooden doors and drawers bearing embossed strips and containing shawls and stoles, papal tiaras, papal rings and pectoral crosses. 

Mr. Bolton tried to explain the concept of the exhibition to the keeper of the sacristy, a quiet Slovakian priest named Pavel Benedik.

“He wasn’t quite sure what the request was,” Mr. Bolton said of Father Benedik. “He was confused.”

Monsignor Marini the Fraud, with Bergoglio 

To expedite the process, Mr. Nesselrath suggested that on his next visit, Mr. Bolton meet with Barbara Jatta, now the director of the Vatican museum. For that trip, Mr. Bolton brought along Ms. Wintour. Ms. Jatta arranged several tours for them, including another trip to the Sacristy, where this time Father Benedik’s assistant, Antonio, showed them around.

Ms. Jatta asked how many items the Met intended to borrow, and Mr. Bolton responded: about eight. Ms. Wintour said he needed to ask for at least twice that, prompting a skeptical laugh from Ms. Jatta. (The Met eventually got more than 40.) Ms. Jatta then informed the curator that the lending of the pieces was, anyway, out of her hands.

“These vestments don’t belong to the Vatican Museum,” she said, according to Mr. Bolton. “They belong to the Sistine Chapel Sacristy.”

Ms. Wintour was less than pleased. 

“She turned around to me and said, ‘This isn’t your finest moment, Andrew,’” Mr. Bolton recalled.

So he came back. Again and again. 

“He was quite the dandy,” Mr. Bolton said.

And Father Benedik warmed to him. Nevertheless, the priest lacked the power to authorize a loan and suggested that Mr. Bolton talk to Archbishop Gänswein.

“He’s like a movie star, it’s like meeting George Clooney,” Mr. Bolton said of the archbishop, often called “Gorgeous George.” Archbishop Gänswein, apparently on board, told Mr. Bolton to send an official request to Msgr. Guido Marini, the papal master of liturgical celebrations and the keeper of the sacristy.

The Met’s head of exhibitions, Quincy Houghton, did just that, and Monsignor Marini’s office asked for approval — a “nihil obstat” in Vatican parlance — from the first section of the Secretariat of State, which is responsible for general church affairs. 

“This is not a procedure where the pope gets involved, or has to give his O.K.,” said the Vatican spokesman Greg Burke.

When permission was granted, Mr. Bolton returned for many more trips and, with Father Benedik, refined the list of objects to borrow, including a papal tiara with 19,000 precious stones, including 18,000 diamonds. (It will fly to New York with its own bodyguard.) During one 10-day stretch of 12-hour days inside the Sacristy with Katarina Jebb, who scanned the objects for the catalog, the custodians entrusted Mr. Bolton with the keys to the Sacristy.  

With the loans secured, Mr. Bolton asked David Tracy, a highly regarded Catholic writer — Mr. Bolton called him “the J.D. Salinger of the theological world” — to contribute an essay to the catalog to lend it intellectual heft.

It took a year before he agreed. Then Mr. Bolton tackled the New York side of the equation, trying to ensure he wasn’t accidentally touching any third rails.

He asked Emily Rafferty, a former president of the Met with connections to New York’s Catholic community, for a hand. She suggested Mr. Bolton work with James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at large for America Magazine, who was appointed last year by Pope Francis as a consultor to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.

Father Martin said that one day, after embarrassingly spilling hummus on his pants earlier, he went to a Met conference room to review the storyboards the curators had pinned to the walls with thumbtacks. He was impressed by what he described as the “real attention to Catholic sensibilities” behind the pairings.

Asked by Mr. Bolton and colleagues if he thought the presentation would prompt any blowback, Father Martin said there may be some complaints about “celebrity culture being grafted onto the church,” but that he thought it would be minor. “They will see something beautiful, and that’s part of the Catholic imagination,” he said.

It was also Father Martin who, reviewing the gift catalog, noticed that one necklace was described as adorned with a “winged man,” and told the Met: “It’s O.K. to say ‘angel.’”

He also suggested asking Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the de facto minister of culture for the Vatican and an erudite former prefect of the Biblioteca-Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan, to contribute to the exhibit catalog. Cardinal Ravasi had gotten to know many of the great designers during his time in the fashion capital, including Miuccia Prada, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, and Giorgio Armani.

In February, the Met delegation, including Mr. Bolton and Ms. Wintour, traveled to Rome to officially announce the exhibit alongside Cardinal Ravasi, who not only participated in the news conference, but also rubbed shoulders with Donatella Versace. She told him she thought his crimson vestments were beautiful.

He said he replied: “The purple is even better.”

Still, in a church where Pope Francis’s dressing down has made dressing up out of style,  questions remain about how a lush exhibit and its related gala, organized by Ms. Wintour, squares with the pope’s desire for a less ostentatious, poorer church.

“Francis with his simple clothes expresses another concept. It’s not combative with the others,” said Cardinal Ravasi, who said he considered fashion a critical cultural language and the lent vestments expressions of the church’s power, beauty and splendor through the centuries.

The cardinal said fashion had biblical origins (“It was God who dressed us. God was the tailor in Genesis”) and that he saw a common thread between the dress code for a gala and the otherworldliness of ecclesiastical vestments. Both of them signified, he said, a distinction from the mundane and quotidian.

As for those who consider the accessorizing of papal vestments with modern fashion a blasphemous exploitation, Cardinal Ravasi said it at least shows those Christian symbols still touch a nerve.

“They aren’t using the symbols of the Roman Empire,” he said with a chuckle.

Three Prelates on the evil plans for the Synod speaking in blunt terms on adultery and homosexuality!

Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness has published this post and this incredible video by Polonia Cristiana.

CATHOLICS - WAKE UP! 

It is your duty and it is mine. You can be silent no longer. 

Our Mother is being raped! 

Jerusalem! Jerusalem! Return unto the LORD, thy God!

"If we do not defend marriage, then we will not defend the Church Herself"

Raymond Cardinal Burke

Polonia Christiana has released an extraordinary video that focuses our attention on the very grave crisis in the Catholic Church; and it goes far and beyond the upcoming Synod. Indeed, the crisis - as seen at least year's October pre-syndol gathering - is far, far deeper than just what transpired in Rome during those two weeks. The crisis has been building for decades, even centuries. I would suggest what we are seeing is the bitter fruit of the Catholic Church being penetrated by liberalism and rationalism. This crisis is perhaps even graver than the Arian crisis. 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider: "That even some Bishops in their public pronouncements contradict some respect[s] of the Catholic doctrine, especially of the moral issues". 

"It is our duty, our first duty, to be faithful to God"

"And all the strategies and of Cardinal Kasper and his group will be revealed as a lie. As a strategy which is against the Spirit of Christ and of the Apostles".

Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga: "I think there is a spirit of the Gospels nowadays. Therefore there is no great message in what the high-ranking hierarchs say. There is no great power in it. It is only a bunch of beautifully spoken words, but there is no truth in it". 

"Either we are on the side of Christ, or we are on the side of the devil. There is no third option"

"... if we believe that homosexuals brought something into the Church, it is nothing but debauchery and licentiousness"

The Right and Duty to Resist a Pope

  

The Popes, Saints, Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have told us through the ages that a pope can be a heretic against the Roman Catholic faith and attempt to destroy the Church through inappropriate policies. Such a pope is to be disobeyed and resisted as a matter of duty.

St. Peter’s instruction

The first pope St. Peter († 67) gave us the general principle of disobedience to, and resistance of, corrupt hierarchies and their commands when he was forbidden to preach Christ by the apostate Jews. When there is a conflict between the will of a religious superior and God, we are to obey God.

“But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

The Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P († 1274) used this incident as an indication that all superiors are to be disobeyed should their commands be against the Will of God.

“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)

The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468) expressly related that Bible passage to the duty to resist a wayward pontiff.

“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)

So, “superiors are not to be obeyed in all things”; a “pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done” and “we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things.” A pope can command “against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law” and then “he ought not to be obeyed.”

St. Paul’s example

Pope St. Peter I himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul because he endangered the truth of the Gospel.

“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)

The Fathers of the Church explained that the incident shows us the correctness of resisting wayward ecclesiastics, even popes. The great Scripture commentator Cornelius a Lapide († 1637) wrote as follows:

“Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all humility and charity so that truth may be defended: this is the basis (Galatians 2, 11) on which St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and many others who are quoted support this opinion. They teach quite unequivocally that St. Peter, although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished by him. St. Gregory rightly states that, “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.” St. Augustine writes, “By showing that superiors admit that they may be rebuked by their subordinates, St. Peter gave posterity an example of saintliness more noteworthy than that given by St. Paul, although the latter showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defence of truth.”“ (Commentary Ad Gal., II, 11.)

So, the Doctor St. Augustine told us that we should “boldly” resist superiors, including the Pope, “without fear”, when we are defending the Faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Scripture passage shows that a pope who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.

“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)

He also commented on it as follows:

“The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth. […] The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.” (Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14 (Taurini/ Rome: Marietti, 1953), lec. III, nn. 83f.)

That is how a heretical pope and his errors are to be resisted: “boldly”, “without fear”, “publicly” and “before everyone”, because he is a “danger to everyone”. That is the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

The instruction of the popes

Various popes have also told us that popes can err from the Faith and should then be resisted.

Pope Innocent III († 1216) stated that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith.

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4)

Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees. He also stated “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”.

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908).*

(* According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, this work was published in 1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.”

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Pope Adrian II († 872) admitted that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”

“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offence which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.

However, I must disagree with Pope Adrian when he said that heresy was the only offence that justified resistance: the Saints and Doctors have informed us otherwise, as we shall see.

Further, Pope Honorius I († 638) was not merely “accused of heresy” or “anathematised by the Eastern Churches”: he was anathematised as a heretic by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople, whose Acts were confirmed by Pope Leo II († 683).

“We foresaw that, together with them, also Honorius, before Pope of Old Rome, is cast out of the Holy Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have found by his writings sent to [the heretic] Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and continued his impious principles. [...] To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

So we see that popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees; that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”; that a pope may be a heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to follow the instruction “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”

The teaching of the saints and theologians

The Saints and theologians have told us the same thing through the ages: we must not obey but rather resist wayward pontiffs and their corrupt hierarchies.

The first Doctor of the Church, St. Athanasius († 373), told us that “Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reduced to a handful”. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius († 366) went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed and invalidly excommunicated St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Catholics)

St. Vincent of Lerins († 445) is the Father of the Church most associated with the defence of unchanging doctrinal tradition. It is the subject of his main treatise, the Commonitory. He foresaw that if the whole Church should go into heresy we must keep to the traditional Faith handed down from the Fathers.

“What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.” (Commonitory)

A general corruption of the hierarchy has been foreseen and has happened before and the Saints have told us how we are to respond: we are to keep to the traditional, true Catholic Faith which has been handed down from the Fathers and to reject the “lying novelties” of the pope and the hierarchy.

The theologian Sylvester Prieras, O.P. († 1523) discussed the resistance of a corrupt pope at some length. He asked, “What should be done in cases where the pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?” and “What should be done if the pope wishes unreasonably to abolish the laws of church or state?” His answer was as follows:

“He would certainly be in sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion, and likewise to obey himin matters which are evil; on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him while administering a courteous rebuke.

“Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church's wealth, or Peter's Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroy the church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him.”

“It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands, orders or by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.” (Dialogus de Potestate Papae)

It would be “unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion”, without any resistance, and “likewise to obey him.” There is “a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him.” As he has papal power only to build up the Church and not to destroy it, it is “lawful to oppose him.” He is to be “resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented.” “Open resistance” is a right and a duty.

The theologian Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. († 1534) declared: “It is imperative to resist a pope who is openlydestroying the Church.” (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio). Such a pope must be resisted, his policies opposed and prevented and true Catholic Faith and practice maintained. Resistance must be established and advanced.

The canonist and theologian, Fr. Francisco de Victoria, O.P. († 1546) told us the same.

“According to natural law, violence may lawfully be opposed by violence. Now, through the acts permitted and the orders of the kind under discussion, the Pope does commit violence, because he is acting contrary to what is lawful. It therefore follows that it is lawful to oppose him publicly. Cajetan draws attention to the fact that this should not be interpreted as meaning that anybody whosoever canjudge the Pope, or assume authority over him, but rather that it is lawful to defend oneself even against him. Every person, in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried out, and thus he defends himself.” (Obras, pp. 486-7)

All of the Faithful have the right to oppose the actions of a corrupt pope and to try to prevent his harmful policies from being carried out. It is “lawful to oppose him publicly.”

The theologian, Francisco Suarez S.J. († 1617), said likewise.

“If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, heshould not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

The Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. († 1621), wrote a treatise on the Papacy which was used as a basis for the definition of the limits of papal infallibility which was made at Vatican I. He wrote as follows:

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

A pope “who attempts to destroy the Church” is not to be obeyed but “it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

Council Vatican I (1870) defined that a pope has no power or right to come out with new doctrines or to change the Faith which has been handed down from the Apostles but only to maintain and preach it.

“For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, cap. 4)

A pope has the right to do nothing but to maintain the true Catholic Faith, exactly as it has been received. If he attempts to do otherwise, he is to be denounced and opposed along with all the doctrinal innovations he attempts to impose on the Faithful.

Summary and recap of perennial teaching

We have seen that tradition instructs us that the global episcopate can fall away from the Faith and that true Catholics can be reduced to a handful. Popes can defect from the Faith and “teach” heresy in their decrees. They can destroy the Church with their acts. Then we must not obey but must openly resist the pope and the hierarchy and try to stop their policies from being implemented.

To recap:

Pope St. Peter I instructed us that we must obey God rather than men when there is a conflict between the two. The Doctors and theologians of the Church emphasised this by telling us “superiors are not to be obeyed in all things”; a “pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done”; and “we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things.” A pope can command “against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law”, and then “he ought not to be obeyed.”

Further, St. Paul publicly resisted Pope St. Peter to his face because he was endangering the Faith. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church emphasised that we should “boldly” resist superiors, including the Pope, “without fear”, when we are defending the Faith; a pope who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.

Popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees; and that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”; that a pope may be a heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to follow the instruction, “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”

And finally, we have seen that the Saints and approved theologians through the ages have told us that it can happen that “some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once”, and it can come to pass that “Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful”. Should this happen the great concern of each “will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty” – and it is the “Catholics faithful to tradition” who “are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” Further, a pope can “destroy the Church through his evil actions” and then “it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion”; “on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him”; there “would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him”; “he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented” with “open resistance”. Again, “it is lawful to oppose him publicly”; “every person, in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried out.” Indeed, “it is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.” He “should not be obeyed” and it is “lawful to resist him” if he acts contrary to justice and the common good. A pope has no right to teach novelty. It is “lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed” should he destroy the Church.

Bergoglio calls out those who use "adjective culture" that "belittles"

At the World Youth Daycare in Panama, Bergoglio of Rome said that "Gossipers are not interested (in the person). They quickly seek to put a label to get them out of the way. The adjective culture belittles the person,"

You mean like:

"Old maid!"

"Fomenter of coprophagia!"

"Specialist of the Logos!"

"Rosary counter!"

"Functionary!"

"Self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian!"

"Restorationist!"

"Ideological Christians!"

"Pelagian!"

"Mr and Mrs Whiner!"

"Triumphalist!"

"Rigid Christians!"

"Modern gnostics!"

"Liquid Christian!"

"Superficial Christians!"

"Slaves of superficiality!"

"Museum mummy!"

"Renaissance prince!"

"Airport Bishop!"

"Leprous courtier!"

"Idealogue!"

"Long-faced, mournful funeral Christian!"

"Gnostic!"

"Careerist Bishop!"

"Sourpuss!"

"Authoritarian!"

"Elitist!"

"Querulous and disillusioned pessimist!"

"Sad Christian!"

"Pickled pepper-faced Christian!"

"Children! Afraid to dance! To cry! Afraid of everything!"

"Asker for certainty in all things!"

"Christians allergic to preaching!"

"Closed, sad, trapped Christian who is not a free Christian!"

"Pagan Christian!"

"Little monster!"

"Defeated Christian!"

"Creed-reciting, parrot Christian!"

"Watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christian!"

"Inquisitorial beater!"

"Seminarians who grit their teeth and wait to finish!"

"Those who follow rules and smile [who] reveal the hypocrisy of clericalism - one of the worst evils!"

 "Abstract ideologue!"

"Fundamentalist!"

"Smarmy, idolator priest!"

"Worshiper of the god Narcissus!"

"Priest-wheeler dealer!"

"Priest-tycoon!"

"Religious who have a heart as sour as vinegar!"

"Promoter of the poison of immanence!"

“Those closed in the formality of a prayer that is cold, stingy!"

"They might end up as Michal, in the sterility of her formality.”

"Older people nostalgic for structures and customs which are no longer life-giving in today’s world!"

"Young people addicted to fashion!"

"Pastry-Shop Christians!"

"Luscious cakes, sweet dainties!"

"Delectable, but not real Christians!"

"Existential tourist!"

"Anesthetised Christian!"

And more at http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/

Getting Jesus off the floor - one person at a time and it begins with you!

An update of an old post of April 28, 2008

After work today, I attended St. Michael's Cathedral in Toronto for the late afternoon Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I arrived early and was able to pray the Rosary during the exposition and adoration which occurs daily at the Cathedral from after the lunch hour Mass until the end of the day. This daily exposition and adoration has been going on for as far as I can remember. It is probably what has kept this wretched City from sinking even further into the abyss.

The Cathedral in Toronto is indeed a wonderful example of Gothic revival. Oh, I could make a few improvements such as restoring the High Altar and a Communion Rail; but other than that it is quite stunning. Its windows must be amongst the most beautiful in Canada. Through the St. Michael's Choir School they have kept alive at every Sunday and Holy Day liturgy, Gregorian chant and the sacred choral music of the Church's patrimony.

You probably think a "but" is coming; well gentle people, it is.

After I received the Eucharist (on the tongue) I had no sooner closed my mouth and the woman who preceded me let out a little gasp; there He lay dropped on the carpet, 5 cm from my right foot and my steel-toed construction boot. She dropped Him, she dropped Him from her hand and He bounced off the toe of that boot.

How is this possible that she dropped Him from her hand? I mean, did she just let go!

Everyone stopped, including me. I stood perfectly still with Our LORD lying there beside my foot. Father bent down slowly and picked Him up and held Him in his hand against the ciborium

If that were not enough, a few moments later as I was kneeling on the right aisle the last communicant approached. She took the Host and started to walk away without consuming. I put up my hands to gain Father's attention and was prepared to stop her (after all, I am a Knight of Columbus) if he could not. Fortunately, she got the message and consumed Our LORD. Perhaps, she was just lazy or sloppy, perhaps she meant no sacrilege.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta often opined that this change (an indult which is optional for the local Bishop to accept and can be removed by the Pope) was the worst problem in the world today; "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

If you are in your mid to late 50's, you will have had a similar experience to myself. When I celebrated my First Communion I was on my knees at the communion rail. Together, with my other classmates we held a white linen cloth which was hung over the rail by the altar boys and which we held up under our chins. An altar boy accompanied the priest holding a brass plate called a paten and placed it under our chins. The priest approached and held up the Holy Eucharist and with it made the Sign of the Cross whilst saying; "Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam meam in vitam aeternam. Amen" which translates; May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ bring you to eternal life. Amen.

A few years later I was told that I was "lucky" because I was part of the first class of altar boys that did not need to learn Latin. By this time, and in the new church building, there was no communion rail and nobody knelt any more for Holy Communion. People lined up and approached the priest in a similar fashion to what they did at McDonald's or now, Tim Hortons. We altar boys still held the paten and people received the Eucharist on their tongues. When the last person had communicated the altar boys would carefully carry their patens horizontally to the Altar and assist the priest with the ablution. I can clearly remember seeing little pepper sized particles of the Eucharist on the paten which the priest wiped off with his fingers into the chalice after which I rinsed his fingers over the chalice and he would consume the remains.

I don't need to describe how Our Blessed LORD is received today. So instead, let me pose a few questions:

Do you wash your hands before receiving his body?

Do you "make a throne with your left and receive Him in your right" and then bring your hands to your mouth to feed yourself? Or, do you take Him with your fingers and pop Him into your mouth like a cracker or a potato chip?

Do you purify your hands afterwards as was the actual practice in those days prior to the ninth century when the few laity that actually did receive the Eucharist received in their hands?

Have you ever noticed any particles left on your hands?

Do you think any particles would have fallen to the floor to be tramped under afoot, or mopped up and poured down a municipal drain or vacuumed up from the ubiquitous carpet?

Do you think someone did not consume the Sacred Species but instead stole Him so as to dishonour and defame Him in a black satanic ritual?

Did you ever find Him in a hymn book or under a pew or lying on the asphalt in the parking lot?

Something to think about isn't it?

There is an abbreviated Latin saying in the Church, Lex orendi, lex credendi. That is to say, the law of prayer becomes the law of belief. We are sensory beings and how we worship, how we pray, what we see and smell and hear affects how we think, how we believe and what we believe.

Receiving Holy Communion in the hand was an abuse that began in Holland and spread to Belgium and then to England before crossing the Atlantic. It was the late 1960's and it was wrong. Pope Paul VI, at worst, an ineffectual shepherd, was either incapable or unwilling to stop what was considered to be an abuse and abomination. He condemned it, regretted it and then with absurdity, legalised it!

Just because we can does not mean that we should.

Throughout history, it was often the laity, or one nun as in St Catherine of Sienna or a holy priest as with St. Philip Neri with the gifts of the Holy Spirit who helped to rescue the church from its corruption. Who says that it cannot be you and me, one person at a time. You can fix the problem, it really is very simple and you can begin the next time you attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You can join Pope Benedict's plan which is becoming clearer.

I just didn't think it would be lead from Kazakhstan.

This situation today is a perfect time to send you to read here about the Archbishop of Lima in Peru. He has just banned Communion-in-the-Hand!

Here is a podcast by the ubiquitous Father Z on the subject.

Here is a lengthy and necessary read by Jude A. Huntz which appeared in the March 1997 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review.

This was just posted by Fr. Thomas Kocik on the New Liturgical Movement.

Be sure to read this essay by the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider, Auxilary Bishop of Karaganda in Kazakhstan.

"You cannot trust what you are hearing from Fr. Lombardi and Fr. Rosica." - and more about "irregular families"

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexzero-transparency

The beginning of the second week came to a screeching halt in the press hall when Fr. Federico Lombardi and Fr. Thomas Rosica had to address the news of a letter that had been signed by a number of cardinals last week saying, 

(...)

In fact, whenever anything happens of controversy in the Synod Hall among the bishops, Fr. Lombardi and Fr. Rosica say nothing, reveal nothing, talk about none of it. They are masters at their profession of manipulating and orchestrating the flow of information to the media.

(...)

Fr. Lombardi hadn't told them about it, Lombardi simply answered, "I don’t have to tell you anything I don't want to."

(...)

And the point here is this: You cannot trust what you are hearing from Fr. Lombardi and Fr. Rosica.

(...)

Why all the secrecy, the deception, the stacking of the deck? These are legitimate questions, and the Vatican has a duty to deal in a straightforward fashion, not play duck and weave when it comes to information.

(...)

So far, the press has heard very little from Fr. Lombardi and Fr. Rosica except those heterodox positions. ... Meanwhile, those cardinals who oppose this heterodoxy are not heard from, aren't brought to the press briefings, and their concerns and objections are not reported by Frs. Lombardi and Rosica. It's like dealing with the KGB information officer.

(...)

Every day, reporters gather into the press hall to essentially be presented propaganda from heterodox Churchmen, who use the Vatican's Press Office to muzzle orthodox dissent from within the Synod Hall. 

(...)

Is Father Rosica saying that we need to accept this as a "family?"
(Vox's artwork over their posteriors)

Fr. Rosica and his non-stop drum-banging to keep the issue of homosexuality alive in the press room. Not a day goes by that he doesn't introduce heterodox language about gay sex into the press hall discussion.

Most recently, attributing it to the discussions in the Hall, Fr. Rosica said we have to begin to accept the changing understanding of family. He spoke of single-parent families, and, of course, managed to slip in (like he always does) his daily dose of sodomite propaganda: "same-sex families." Rosica is constantly jamming — a term developed by militant homosexuals which means constantly injecting into the conversation incorrect vocabulary that blurs the lines. 

There is no such thing as a same-sex family. Families are modeled on the Holy Family, not the current societal trendy flavor of the month, especially one as twisted and perverse as children submitted to two men having sex.

But Michael, Father Rosica said that the Holy Family was "irregular"

Rosica has to go — and while they're at it, so does most of the staff at the press hall. Until they start being more open and transparent, as well as more orthodox, they aren't worth listening to.