Saturday, 7 May 2016

Why should a pope speak plainly? He treats the Church of Christ as a joke! Make a mess, he says. Well, he did!

My question is this:

Would the mess be because he would uphold the doctrine or because he wouldn't?

What arrogance!

What disgusting conniving and manipulation. You see, we were right. We were right for the last two years when we said that these malefactors were manipulating the truth. 

Oh, they said, the Pope won't change doctrine, the Pope can't change doctrine, isn't that what Tom told us?
"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world." 

O LORD, deliver us from these deceitful men and the Vicar of error and send us a Holy Pope who will restore all things in You!

Here, the co-conspirators.

Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”
A friend of mine, from Italy says there is a translation error in the above, it actually worse!
"If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess THESE PEOPLE will make"  
And from the context one could assume "THESE PEOPLE" to mean the Bishops at the Synod, or "the conservative Bishops" perhaps...


Ana Milan said...

At last what we knew all along is now coming to the surface. This Papacy is a sham and his colluders are now so brazen as to shamefully make jokes about their connivance at writing Amoris Laetitia in such an obscure way that even the CDF cannot find it to be heretical according to Canon Law. They show no respect or fear of God and those in the Hierarchy who still hold true to the faith must now call a Council to formally require PF to scrap AL & offer his resignation. Nothing else will suffice at this stage.

Charles D. Fraune said...

I predict: Bp. Fellay will become a Cardinal and then Pope Pius XIII. Intriguing. Pray for it.

Anonymous said...

In order to be a heretic ,you have to believe in something ,if these men can act with such subterfuge ,and joke about the salvation of souls ,and sacrilegious Communions ,they show all the appearances of atheists.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis is very of calling people Pharisees ,yet did the Pharisee not change the law of Moses to allow divorce ,if so ,then the occupants of the Vatican have a lot in common with them.

Mark Thomas said...

I find it difficult to believe this story. Why would one of the supposed key conspirators in the supposed plot to attack the moral teaching of Jesus Christ and His Church boast in public of the conspirators' secret plan?

If the news abut Archbishop Forte is true, then he has confirmed publicly that His Holiness Pope Francis is an enemy of Jesus Christ. Again, why would a key member of the supposed cabal reveal publicly such a thing?

This alleged story is akin to JFK assassination stories that feature supposed JFK conspirators revealing publicly their plot to murder President Kennedy. Why would a key member of the assassination cabal expose the cabal publicly? Answer: He or she wouldn't.

Why would Archbishop Forte reveal Pope Francis supposed evil scheme to destroy morality? That doesn't make a bit of sense.

If the story in question is true, then the Catholic blogosphere and every news organization on earth would be all over the story of the century...the story of all time?

"POPE FRANCIS' SECRET SCHEME TO ATTACK JESUS CHIRST AND CATHOLIC CHURCH REVEALED!" would be the headline broadcast all over the world.

However, there hasn't been any such reaction throughout the Catholic blogosphere and beyond. That suggests that there is something very suspicious about the story in question. But that aside, there are many things about the story that are very, very suspect.

The greatest of all is that as late as February 17, 2016 A.D., Pope Francis declared publicly that (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" could not receive Holy Communion.

During a press conference on that date, Pope Francis spoke about the Synod and how he would respond to the Synod and it's treatment of family and marriage. Anne Thompson of NBC News then asked Pope Francis the following point-blank question:

Anne Thompson, NBC News: "Does that mean they can receive Communion?"

Pope Francis: Integrating in the Church doesn’t mean receiving communion. I know married Catholics in a second union who go to church, who go to church once or twice a year and say I want communion, as if joining in Communion were an award.

"It’s a work towards integration, all doors are open, but we cannot say, ‘from here on they can have communion.’ This would be an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because it wouldn’t allow them to proceed on this path of integration."

Pope Francis responded clearly to the question. Divorced and remarried Catholic cannot receive Holy Communion. Among other things, for such Catholics to do so would constitute "an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because it would not allow them to proceed in this path of integration."

Pope Francis made that 100 percent clear. Why would he declare publicly that which is 100 percent opposed to his supposed secret plot that would allow divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion?

Sorry, but the story about Archbishop Forte is very suspect.


Mark Thomas

Michael Dowd said...

Thanks Vox. This story is all over the place now as well it should be. It is another sign of just how far the Bergoglio situation has devolved when they can talk about their Machiavellian tactics with such impunity. To them our supposed credulity is a big joke. At the end the joke will be on them.

Peter Lamb said...

"Vicar of error" This is an impossibility. A true Vicar of Christ cannot teach error - the Holy Ghost protects him from doing so in his magisterium, discipline or governance of the Church. Thus says the dogma of Papal Infallibility. A true Pope cannot be a "Vicar of Error". If Bergoglio is a "Vicar of Error" - which he truly is - then he cannot be a true Pope, can he? To insist that a true Pope can teach error to the Universal Church, is to reject Catholic dogma and to reject one dogma, is to reject all dogma. That buys a ticket to a very hot place for a very long time.

Brian said...


Such is the confident arrogance and overweening pride of the Bergoglio cabal. It calmly and brazenly boasts of its contempt(1). Forte knows, that he can, with complete impunity, "middle finger" orthodox Catholicism. The bishops will remain silent. These modi scribendi loquendique with embedded seeds of ongoing destruction are, again, so common to the likes of Bergoglio and Forte. They are truly sons of Loisy and Tyrell.

1. ...That being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy..." Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 42.

Rosary counters, self absorbed neo-palagians, keep up the fight.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, I just went to the OnePeterFive web site that you linked. From there, my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) of the story is as follows:

1. An English-language translation was made of...

2. A report of...

3. A press conference during which Archbishop Forte claimed...

4. That His Holiness Pope Francis had plotted to defy the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.

Is that correct?

If that is correct, then the "chain of evidence" is an English-language translation of a report about an Italian-language report that claimed that Archbishop Forte had claimed that Pope Francis is the head of cabal designed to attack Jesus Christ's teaching.

That has rendered the story very suspect. I would need to read something far more compelling than before I could even begin to accept the plausibility of such a claim about a supposed cabal headed by Pope Francis.

On top of that, there is the question as to why one of the supposed cabal's key members would reveal publicly the plot in question. That would constitute a very bizarre act by a key cabal member, who, by having gone public, has destroyed the cabal's goal.


Mark Thomas

That doesn't sound

Murray said...

Mark Thomas (Steve, whatever);

I know from long experience that you are impervious to rational argumentation, but for the record.

1. Italian is a world language. Many people are able to translate between Italian and other languages. It is not an arcane art.

1P5 provided a link to the Italian original. If you believe their translation is doubtful, you are at liberty to come up with your own. That's why they provided it--so that people can check for themselves. It is entirely insufficient to throw doubt on the report merely because it was written in another language.

2. We rely on news reports all the time. You, for instance, place a enormous amount of weight on:

i. An English-language translation of...
ii. A report of...
iii. A press conference during which Pope Francis supposedly (according to you)...
iv. Ruled out communion for the divorced and remarried.

In both cases, the chain of evidence is identical, yet you draw sweeping conclusions from one but would require "something far more compelling" from the other. I can't help wondering why that is? Perhaps because one tells you what you want to hear while the other doesn't?

4. Why would Forte reveal this? A few possible reasons, none of them mutually exclusive:
i. For the same reason that Cardinal Kasper has repeatedly (and plausibly) claimed the pope's support: the pope is on their side and they have nothing to fear.
ii. Because they believe they've won and are attempting to cement their victory.
iii. Because there is a vicious internal war within the Vatican over AL, in which both factions are offering opposing interpretations of AL.
iv. Forte is lying.

Look: in the end, you have two options:
I. Forte said it.
II. Forte didn't say it.

If he said it, either he's lying or he's not.

If he's lying, we should expect firm, unequivocal disavowals from the Vatican Press Office, and Forte being called on the carpet at the very least. He is, after all, a high-ranking synodal official, so his words carry great weight.

If he didn't say what he's reported to have said, we would expect him to say so in no uncertain terms, plus perhaps a similar disavowal from the Press Office.

That's really it. For goodness' sake, man, quit with the boilerplate talking points and use your rational mind.

Anonymous said...

The cabal is doing what most people want: the destruction of the traditional Church in favor of a new, progressive "church". That is why secrecy is not very important to them. What are the repercussions when their ideas are revealed? They get praised by the media, not attacked.

Barona said...

A Pope can indeed teach error. we have had a number of popes teach error. The Pope is a moral free agent; he is not some spiritual automaton. Catholics do not believe in some "Mohommedan" version of the papacy, whereby every word out of the mouth of the Pope is from the Holy Spirit. This is blasphemy and heresy. One is guilty of formal heresy following canonical procedures. It is obvious to all that Pope Francis cannot be charged and convicted of formal heresy. Unless, he convicts himself and resigns from Office.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Barona, This might give you a better understanding of the dogma of Papal Infallibility:

Anonymous said...

On top of that, there is the question as to why one of the supposed cabal's key members would reveal publicly the plot in question. That would constitute a very bizarre act by a key cabal member, who, by having gone public, has destroyed the cabal's goal.
Mark Thomas

Assuming arguendo that the statements are true, I fail to see how "the cabal's goal" would be destroyed by the candid admission. The goal has already been accomplished.

Didn't Cardinal Danneels admit to being part of a "cabal" to oust Pope Benedict?

He openly admitted it after the fact, much like this statement, and the cardinal's statement did not destroy anyone's goal.

Such conduct is called hubris and is often engaged in by people who feel invincible.


Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Didn't Cardinal Danneels admit to being part of a "cabal" to oust Pope Benedict? He openly admitted it after the fact, much like this statement, and the cardinal's statement did not destroy anyone's goal."

Cardinal Danneels did not admit to having belonged to any such cabal. The grassy knoll-ish conspiracy theory/story was discredited within hours of its having been reported.

By the way, on September 26, 2015 A.D., the day after the conspiracy theory/story had been reported, then discredited immediately, Edward Pentin's reported on that in the Nation Catholic Register.

Edward Pentin's article in question noted the following: "note that campaigning for candidates isn’t out of the ordinary in anticipation of papal elections. Shortly before the death of Pope St. John Paul II in 2005, various prelates were also pushing for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be his successor.

"One of the most vigorous was Cardinal Julián Herranz, then president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, who helped ensure the cardinal leapt “to the top of the list of candidates for the papacy”, according to Vaticanist Sandro Magister."

Therefore, if we are to view Pope Francis' Pontificate as the result supposedly of a cabal, then we must conclude that Pope Benedict XVI's Pontificate was also concocted by a cabal.

Traditionalists who wish to promote the cabal conspiracy theory to attempt to discredit Pope Francis' Pontificate had better be careful as that same game may be played just as easily in regard to Pope Benedict XVI's Pontificate.

History has demonstrated that adhering to Occam's razor has time and again trumped those who have pursued Vatican-related theories. Please, as serious-minded Catholics, we are served better by leaving crackpot comic book Vatican conspiracy theories to Jack Chick and his ilk.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR..."Assuming arguendo that the statements are true, I fail to see how "the cabal's goal" would be destroyed by the candid admission. The goal has already been accomplished."

Their goal has not been accomplished. One Cardinal and bishop after another has pronounced Amoris Laetitia beautiful, uplifting, 100 percent orthodox, and in no way has the Exhortation permitted unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

Therefore, the only thing that Archbishop Forte accomplished, if we pretend that his comment about Pope Francis and the supposed conspiracy theory is valid, is that Archbishop Forte has portrayed Pope Francis and the Pope's "conspirators" as heretics. They have rejected the Church's teaching in question. That is the only thing that they have "".

Again, the overwhelming majority of Cardinals and bishops have pronounced Amoris Laetitia in line with Familiaris Consortio and intend to adhere to the Church's Traditional teachings in question.

Bishop Schneider declared that Amoris Laetitia "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family...there are bishops who claim that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."

Cardinal Burke has interpreted AL in orthodox fashion. The same applies to TLM-friendly Bishop Egan of England. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco declared that Amoris Laetitia has "reinforced the teaching of the Church and the insights of his predecessors."

Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles said that Pope Francis "has no intention of changing Church doctrine or teaching." Archbishop Chaput has interpreted Amoris Laetitia in orthodox fashion.

Cardinal Schönborn declared that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox...has not changed Church 100 percent in line with Familiaris Consortio...and that footnote 351 refers to the Holy Sacrament of Confession.

The supposed conspirators, Pope Francis, Archbishop Forte, and Cardinal Kapser, have failed miserably in their supposed goal to force Cardinals and bishops to accept Amoris Laetitia as a document that has overthrown Church teaching on family and marriage.

Again, one Cardinal and bishop after another has declared that Amoris Laetitia will be implemented in line with Jesus Christ's ancient teachings on marriage.

Therefore, the supposed "conspirators" accomplished z-e-r-o...other than having exposed themselves (supposedly) as heretics.


Mark Thomas