Monday, 29 August 2016

The Don Bergoglio Mafia friends of the Ratzingoglian Papacy

Christopher Ferrara exposes Don Mario's mafia.

A must read.


Michael Dowd said...

Thanks Vox. The Pope and his boys take on God and the 6th and 9th Commandments. What next??

Peter Lamb said...

"Be strong! You must not give in where it is not necessary to give in (...) You must fight, not half-way, but with courage instead; not in hiding but in public; not behind closed doors, but out in the open." (Saint Pius X) - Just like Vox does!

Peter Lamb said...

"Vatican II About Face" is the latest in a series of books written by Fr. Luigi Villa Th. D. Translated into English in 2011, this book reveals all of the serious defects and even heresies promoted by Vatican II. Concise and to the point, Fr. Villa explains eight heresies that have been ordained and promoted by this Council:

1. The Cult of Man
2. A New Religion
3. “New Prophets” of Joy
4. Idolatry of the World
6. “Religious freedom”
7. Ecumenism
8. Universal Salvation

"I believe there will come a day when Vatican II will be declared
“null and void” in a solemn judgment of the Supreme Pontiff.
It will then appear as an anomalous stone, abandoned at the back of a cemetery." (Fr. Luigi Villa Th. D.)

Jonah said...

A coin-operated mercy dispenser:

Mark Thomas said...

There are "traditionalists" who are in monumental denial in regard to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's liberalism. They are amazed that Pope Benedict XVI could possibly have thrown in with Pope Francis' liberalism.

I have found that such folks are divided generally into two camps.

There are those "traditionalists" who believe the fantasy that Pope Benedict XVI was a staunch traditionalist who never, ever, ever could possibly accept and promote Pope Francis' "liberalism."

Therefore, to confirm their denial, they have concocted the embarrassing fairytale/conspiracy theory that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is drugged..."look at his eyes...look at his eyes"..., and held "prisoner" by Pope Francis and the pretend "mafia" that elected "antipope" Francis.

It is amazing that adults would concoct and believe such embarrassing nonsense as that.

On the other hand, there are "traditionalists" who are shocked by the notion that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI supports Pope Francis' "liberal" Pontificate. They don't buy into the embarrassing nonsense that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is drugged and all but "imprisoned" by Pope Francis and his "gang."

But Pope Benedict XVI's liberalism has caught them off guard (they never realized that he was, in many ways, very liberal?). Rather than attribute Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's support for Pope Francis to the preposterous notion that he (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) is drugged, they have attacked Pope Benedict XVI as a fraud and traitor who has revealed finally his true colors.

What has amazed me about the two groups in question is that many traditionalists long ago had recognized Father Ratzinger/Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI's liberal side to the point that they accused him routinely of heresy.

Here are examples from the 1990s, when the SSPX attacked then-Cardinal Ratzinger regularly and viciously as a "heretic." Many traditionalists had, as a matter of routine, questioned Cardinal Ratzinger's orthodoxy.

SSPX insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger is "anathema":

January 1998 A.D.


1993 A.D. SSPX insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger is key player in the "New Theology" and is determined to destroy the True Faith.


SSPX: 1999 A.D. Cardinal Ratzinger is a modernist/heretic who has a "Destructive Mind."
SSPX: 1993 A.D. Cardinal Ratzinger played a key role in inserting false teachings into the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


I reject the SSPX's claims against then-Cardinal Ratzinger. But the following is certain about him: Father/Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger most certainly was a staunch liberal in various ways.

Traditionalists recognized that decades ago. That is why I'm surprised that traditionalists today are amazed at Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's support of Pope Francis' liberalism.


Mark Thomas

Dan said...

RE: John Laws:
I seem to be behind on the news, I did not know that the reception of sacraments was tied to paying a tax. Simony it is, and it is hard to accept that the Vatican would approve.
What does one do in Germany, show a receipt at the communion line?
I'm joking, but this does show where the Church's priority lies....$$$

Mark Thomas said...

Chris Ferrara portrays Bishop Kevin Farrell very differently than the one with whom I'm familiar. Example: In regard to admitting unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics to holy communion, having received direction from the Chancery:

Priests at parishes in my area addressed Amoris Laetitia. The priests insisted that Amoris Laetita did not change Church teaching in regard to Her refusal to permit unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion. The priests insisted that Amoris Laetitia is in line with Church tradition.

Bishop Kevin Farrell has an excellent record in regard to his promotion of Confession throughout the Dallas Diocese. In union with Bishop Farrell, the many parishes in my area uphold the Church's teachings in regard to that which a sinner must do to receive Holy Communion.

Chris Ferrara quoted Bishop Farrell selectively in regard to Amoris Laetitia to portray Bishop Farrell as one who portrayed Amoris Laetitia as a revolutionary document that has permitted unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

Chris Ferrara failed conveniently to note that Bishop Farrell declared that via Amoris Laetitia, "the Pope neither proposes or anticipates changes in the Church’s traditional teaching."

Why did Chris Ferrara refuse to note that Bishop Farrell has upheld the Church's teachings on family, marriage, and the proper understanding of the Holy Sacrament of Penance?

I don't recognize Bishop Kevin Farrell as the evil, heretical bishop that Chris Ferrara portrayed.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark, you might want to check out Dallas Area Catholic Blog. He covers Bishop Farrell's many questionable and heterodox statements and practices in his diocese. Him being appointed to head the new disastery is awful news. He is not some great defender of Tradition.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas conveniently leaving out known records of Bishop Farell's heterodoxy? Not a surprise. Chris Ferrara is thorough, the likes that Mark pretends to be around here.

Not to mention that Mark haplessly misses the point that the modernist always pretends his heterodoxy is perfectly in line with the Church's perennial teachings. Which Amoris Letitia is not. And we're still waiting on Mark Thomas to demonstrate for us how Amoris Letitia does not contradict Familiaris Consortio, and how the statement where it can no longer be said that those living in objective states of sin are deprived of grace is not a heresy. But Mark Thomas would rather run away and point us in the direction of heterodox bishops like Farell who'll easily lie to his face that Amoris Laetitia is wonderful.


And Dan, with regards to Germany, they don't ask for you tax receipts in the Communion Line, heck they'll give Communion to just about anyone. But just wait until it's time for a Baptism, Wedding or Funeral... then the taxes will be of most concern!

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous, I am familiar with Tantumblogo (I won't use his real name). I have seen him many times at the Latin Mass. I believe that he and his family are fine Catholics.

Along with Vox, he is a very important man in the Church. I have never approached Tantumblogo personally as I know that he has far more important things to do than waste time on me...a nobody.

I posted comments to his blog frequently, but departed there last year. My posts, by Steve, remain, I imagine, in his archive. By the way, Tantumblogo posted a comment about the dangers of using one's real name on the internet...and that scared me straight about that...thus, "Mark Thomas." But I have never hesitated to make known that I had posted frequently to Tantumblogo's important blog. My name and posts are, I guess, archived there.

I had also seen Tantumblogo many times at the Latin Mass at Saint Mark. Now, we have, thanks to Bishop Kevin Farrell, a booming FSSP parish in the diocese.

I agree with certain comments that Tantumblogo has made, at least as of last year, about Bishop Farrell. I agree, for example, that Bishop Farrell is a typical moderate bishop in regard to liturgy, which explains the mediocre state of liturgy throughout the Diocese.

But Chris Ferrara's depiction of Bishop Farrell is misleading...a hit-piece against Bishop Farrell.

Bishop Farrell announced that Amoris Laetita did not change Church teaching. In line with Bishop Farrell, the many priests in my area, when discussing Amoris Laetita, made it clear that unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics may not receive Holy Communion.

In line with Bishop Farrell, the many priests in my area, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on sodomite "marriage," upheld from the pulpit the Church's teachings on marriage.

Bishop Farrell has improved tremendously the once-deplorable moral condition of our seminary.

Ordinations have increased dramatically during Bishop Farrell's reign in Dallas.

Bishop Kevin Farrell has been very strong in regard to pro-life, pro-family teachings. He has promoted strongly the Holy Sacrament of Penance.

Sorry, but Chris Ferrara demonstrated that he's not qualified to discuss Bishop Kevin Farrell.


Mark Thomas

I read a comment by him

Mark Thomas said...

I will say the following about Bishop Kevin Farrell:

The Faith collapsed during Pope Blessed Paul VI's reign. (However, the liberalization of the Church began in earnest during Pope Venerable Pius XII's reign.) Popes Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis failed to revive the Church.

Although far from perfect, we would rejoice if we had a Pope who revived the Church to one-tenth the extent to which Bishop Kevin Farrell revived the Catholic Church in Dallas, Texas.

The Church in the Diocese of Dallas had collapsed to an horrific, unimaginable extent during Bishop Charles Grahmann's reign as our bishop. Every aspect of the Church in Dallas was in shambles when Bishop Kevin Farrell was named bishop of Dallas.

The deplorable state of liturgy, moral rot in the seminary, zero morale throughout the Dallas Diocese...that is what Bishop Farrell inherited in Dallas.

Bishop Kevin Farrell, who, in particular, revived the priesthood in the diocese, will leave the Dallas Diocese in far, far, greater spiritual condition than when he arrived in Dallas.

The uninformed nonsense that Chris Ferrara espoused about Bishop Kevin Farrell does not correspond to the real Bishop Kevin Farrell.


Mark Thomas

Abortion is "the defining moral issue not just of today but of the last 35 years."

— Bishop Kevin Farrell, the holy and staunch pro-life, pro-family bishop of Dallas, Texas, 2008 A.D.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox-permitting, here are comments from First Things, August 29, 2016 A.D.

Part 1 of 2.

By William Doino Jr.

The following is far more characteristic of Bishop Kevin Farrell than the nonsense that Chris Ferrara espoused about Bishop Farrell:

"The latest example of this second use of the term “moderate” can be seen in reaction to the Pope’s appointment of Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell to head the new Dicastery for the Laity, Families and Life—which will make him the highest-ranking American prelate in Rome.

"As soon as Farrell’s appointment was announced, the media began describing it as indicative of a “more moderate direction for Vatican offices responsible for hot-button, culture war issues such as abortion, contraception, marriage and divorce.” He has been depicted as a moderate and a “Francis bishop,” in contrast to the “cultural warrior” bishops appointed by Francis’s predecessors.

"But there is no evidence that Bishop Farrell has any intention of backing away from these vital “culture war” issues in his new post. The facts reveal just the reverse. In 2001, St. John Paul II appointed Farrell an auxiliary bishop to the Washington Archdiocese; Pope Benedict XVI appointed him to lead the Diocese of Dallas in 2007.

"If anything, Francis is following the lead of his predecessors in recognizing the episcopal talents of Bishop Farrell—not creating bishops in his own supposed image.

"Furthermore, and contrary to what has been reported, Bishop Farrell is no one’s idea of a cultural and moral appeaser. In 2008, shortly before the presidential election that year, Bishop Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann, then of Fort Worth, issued a powerful pastoral letter, describing abortion as “the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years.”

"The letter was hailed by pro-life groups throughout the world and widely seen as a warning to Catholics about supporting Barack Obama. It led to protests outside the Dallas chancery.

"A visit to the Diocese of Dallas’s website finds many helpful explanations of Catholic teachings in the realm of life, morality, the family, and social justice—complete with links to essential Church documents—and how the Diocese is implementing them. Bishop Farrell is clearly a Catholic who does not pick and choose which teachings in the Catechism he likes, but joyfully embraces them all.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Vox-permitting, here are comments from First Things, August 29, 2016 A.D.

Part 1 of 2.

By William Doino Jr.

The following is far more characteristic of Bishop Kevin Farrell than the nonsense that Chris Ferrara espoused about Bishop Farrell:

"The Bishop, moreover, has never hesitated to bring a sharp Catholic perspective to bear on debates surrounding poverty, immigration, healthcare, the environment, violence, and racism, regardless of what critics say. Indeed, he had the perfect answer to those who would segregate victims into racial categories: “All lives matter: black, white, Muslim, Christian, Hindu. We are all children of God and all human life is precious.”

"After the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, Bishop Farrell released two powerful statements, encouraging the faithful to stand with the Church and not lose hope. “Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of marriage remains as it always has been,” he wrote. “Of course, there will be no same-sex marriages in Catholic churches” for “the Catholic Church can never condone same-sex marriage.”

"Declaring that the Church’s liberty to preach the truth about marriage is sacrosanct, and affirming that the Church would continue to respect the dignity of people with same-sex attraction, Bishop Farrell nonetheless warned: “As a result of this action by the SCOTUS, we know that some are taking it as one more opportunity to characterize the Church and the Catholic faithful as bigots opposed to a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution.”

"Bishop Farrell predicted there may be “dark days” ahead for the Church in America, but he maintained, “the Church has seen much darker days. It is no stranger to adversity.”

"Bishop Farrell remains unbowed, citing St. John Paul II’s, Redemptoris Missio, on the Church’s missionary mandate: “As Catholics, our response to these legal and societal changes is still the same: to proclaim the Gospel in word and deed and to witness the healing and forgiving love of Jesus.”

"More eloquent Catholic words could hardly have been spoken, for they advance a truth that is becoming clearer every day: One cannot be a faithful disciple of Christ, and expect not to be persecuted, or in conflict with the age.

"Bishop Farrell is not, therefore, a “moderate” Catholic, ready to negotiate his beliefs away—but a faithful and admirable one, holding firm to Catholic teaching. Francis is to be commended for elevating him to a such a high-profile and influential position."

"What the Church needs now are not more mythical “moderates,” but strong-willed, committed Catholics like Bishop Kevin Farrell, who are not ashamed to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for “it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.”


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark, I'm glad to hear you know Tantum, I would be honored to meet him some day as well. He, along with Vox, are easily my top 2 favourite bloggers. I would trust the word of these two, and I find that I agree with them more than any others. And yes, I read that Bishop Farrell improved the vocations and seminary situation in Dallas, but as Tantum explained, that would be impossible to have not done better than what his predecessors had left it at, so he doesn't deserve too much credit for that. And it certainly doesn't make up for him supporting that heretical "always our children" homosexual movement in his diocese. Let's please not make Bishop Farrell sound better than he is.

I also hope Mark, that whatever new bishop Dallas gets will let you finally open a second traditional parish in the diocese, something which has been years overdue. And furthermore, Tantum, and many other bloggers, has a good point about using your name on the internet. I think that's the first thing I've ever agreed with you about.

Anonymous said...

I live in the Dallas Diocese. Bishop Farrell was a passable improvement over the situation under Grahmann. (What bishop assigned after the sex abuse scandals wasn't?) But the bishop seems to be quite okay with allowing homosexuals to continue in the priesthood (I have heard from someone in the diaconate program that the number of homosexual priests in Dallas Diocese is 70%) and has endorsed the "Always Our Children" program, trying to spread it throughout the rest of the diocese. Bishop Farrell is always very careful not to offend his big donors. I'm not sure how the bishop plans to "inspire vocations." It's not like he has a lot of programs for boys interested in the priesthood or ever inquires if they even exist. I think I saw a dinner advertised once. He's racking up married deacons, which really doesn't take that much effort. We have a lot of older male parishioners who want to be in charge of their parishes, and this is their ticket, even at a parish that has three priests already. He did get the priests to offer confession during Lent on Wednesday nights, but the rest of the year it is back to Saturday afternoons for about an hour.
Bishop Farrell has made sure to send all the right signals to show he is on board with FrancisChurch: pro-homosexual, pro-illegal immigration, and pro-gun control. (Of course being quoted as saying that many of his flock had a "cowboy mentality" kind of backfired on him when it was time for that Bishop's Annual Appeal.) Oh, and he decided to use the popular extortion method of fundraising. Your Church can't fund any big repair or renovation projects unless you raise a much bigger amount of money, turn it over to the bishop, and then you get a percentage back. No new a/c unit or roof or education building, unless the good bishop gets his cut first.
Also, notice that letter from Bishop Farrell against abortion was in 2008. When the winds changed, he switched his focus to the more favorable current topics.

Aqua said...

Reading Chris Ferrara is like shaving with a cheese grater. Yes, it gets the job done, but at what cost?

I usually agree with him on the issues, but dang, it's painful after I'm done.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous, has Bishop Farrell changed his tune about abortion? If he has, then that has escaped my attention. Bishop Farrell's staunch pro-life, anti-abortion stance is just as powerful today as in 2008 A.D. But please inform me if you have information that he has shifted his attention from his powerful pro-life stance.

Priestly vocations: Dallas had 17 seminarians when Bishop Farrell arrived here. Within three years of his arrival in Dallas, Bishop Farrell had doubled that number.
Today, Holy Trinity Seminary has 70 seminarians.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...


Parishes in the Dallas Diocese offer Confession on Saturdays only? That isn't the case in regard to parishes familiar to me. Here are just a few examples of that.


-- Saint Mark (Plano): Wednesday, Friday, Saturday.

-- Saint Jude (Allen): Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday.

-- Saint Joseph (Richardson): Monday, Saturday.

-- Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton (Plano): Friday, Saturday.

-- Saint Gabriel The Archangel (McKinney): Wednesday, Saturday.

-- Saint Michael The Archangel (McKinney): Thursday, Saturday.

-- Good Shepherd Catholic Church (Garland): Monday, Thursday, Saturday.

Bishop Kevin Farrell has performed holy work in his having inspired our priests to expand the amount of days on which Confession is offered throughout the Dallas Diocese.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...


Bishop Farrell is just a "passable improvement" over Bishop Grahmann. You are entitled most definitely to your opinion.

I have encountered one person after another, moderate, liberal, conservative, who has insisted that the state of the diocese has improved tremendously during Bishop Farrell reign in Dallas. That is my opinion as well. But your differ in that regard. Okay. That is your belief.

Anyway, it is glaringly obvious that Bishop Farrell will leave the diocese in far, far superior spiritual condition than when he arrived here.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Mark, I'm glad to hear you know Tantum, I would be honored to meet him some day as well. He, along with Vox, are easily my top 2 favourite bloggers. I would trust the word of these two, and I find that I agree with them more than any others.

"And yes, I read that Bishop Farrell improved the vocations and seminary situation in Dallas, but as Tantum explained, that would be impossible to have not done better than what his predecessors had left it at, so he doesn't deserve too much credit for that. And it certainly doesn't make up for him supporting that heretical "always our children" homosexual movement in his diocese. Let's please not make Bishop Farrell sound better than he is.

"I also hope Mark, that whatever new bishop Dallas gets will let you finally open a second traditional parish in the diocese, something which has been years overdue. And furthermore, Tantum, and many other bloggers, has a good point about using your name on the internet. I think that's the first thing I've ever agreed with you about."


-- Please know that I have seen Tantumblogo at Mass many times, but have never approached him. But that doesn't have anything to do with him. He and his family have always conducted themselves in holy, kind fashion the times that I've seen them. As I noted earlier, I am certain that he has more important things to do than to waste time on a nobody like me. I don't wish to impose upon him.

-- Anonymous, I disagree with the notion that for Bishop Farrell, it "would be impossible to have not done better than what his predecessors had left it at, so he doesn't deserve too much credit for that."

Many dioceses that have been run into the ground do not recover spiritually and financially. Not every bishop has achieved Bishop Kevin Farrell's holy success in the manner in which he has revived, one way after another, the Dallas Diocese.

Bishop Grahmann had mashed the diocese into the ground. The situation here was horrific. The most remarkable thing is that in just a relative few years, with God's help, Bishop Farrell has performed stellar holy work in reviving the diocese spiritually and financially.

Sorry, but not every bishop would have cooperated with God to the extent that Bishop Farrell has displayed.

-- Anonymous, I agree with you about the need for the Dallas Diocese to establish a second, at least a second, TLM-only parish. I believe that two, even three or four (or more) TLM-only parishes would thrive in the diocese.

There is certainly the need for an additional TLM-only parish, as well as some Traditional Latin Masses at various parishes.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Let's please not make Bishop Farrell sound better than he is."

How the following: Let us request that Chris Ferrara and The Remnant not twist Bishop Farrell into an evil, unorthodox bishop. How about that.

Once again, The Remnant has published utter garbage. That is a fact in regard to the trash that they published about Bishop Kevin Farrell.

What is frightening is that people who don't know anything about Bishop Farrell, will read The Remnant's garbage article in question, then believe that which they've read.

But I guess that I shouldn't expect anything other than the above from The Remnant.

After all, just a few months ago, The Remnant bashed and trashed Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Archbishop Chaput...and additional Churchmen.

The Remnant insisted that the above Churchmen are "foolish bishops" who are "playing us for fools." Now, The Remnant has published garbage about Bishop Kevin Farrell.

How about it, Anonymous? Perhaps you should inform Chris Ferrara and the Remnant not to twist Bishop Kevin Farrell into an evil, unorthodox bishop.

Thank you.


Mark Thomas

Aqua said...

Mark Thomas, I agree with you in this. It is not just that the circle of Faithful becomes exceedingly small. It's that it becomes discouraging that no one outside of a few blogs and possibly the SSPX even retain the Faith any more. It begins to feel that way to me, (unless I regain needed perspective). It directly affects my Faith and willingness to persevere in the midst of the "universal apostasy". If Burke and Schneider and Sarah and Cordileone and Chaput et al can no longer be trusted, and even the SSPX itself is wavering, who else remains? Arrgghh!

I was part f the Dallas Dioscese for a time. I am lightly familiar with Bp Farrell. To me he was not bad, "squishy" perhaps but a supporter of a thriving FSSP community. Kind of agree with Ferrara's analysis in general, but Farrel IS in fact the Bishop and is due respect as such, even if receiving needed criticism.

It's important when criticizing, to be very careful to retain a sense of Charity, obedience, and perspective, always remembering our position as Laymen and respecting that of our Apostolc leaders which is God ordained.

And, by the way, I appreciate that about this blog. As much as Vox comes under attack for his pointed and precise criticisms, he still retains perspective and focus on that which is good. Perspective and respect are so important to retain these confusing days.

Wolverine said...

..." It is expected that the Pope's interest in promoting the laity make it possible to see soon lay cardinals, men and women..."

Michael Dowd said...

Wolverine. Good observation. How about a lay Pope? Or a lay female Pope? My guess about all of this is that we will see divine intervention before long.

Peter Lamb said...

Does anybody remember real Catholic teaching, when we were talking about real Catholic Bishops, in the old days?:

"To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor." (Epistola Tua, Pope Leo XIII.)

"No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion." (Est Sane Molestum, Pope Leo XIII.)

" scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff...." (Est Sane Molestum, Pope Leo XIII.)

Vox Cantoris said...

Then I imagine that I am in big trouble.

Peter Lamb said...

Ha ha! (I'm not saying LOL anymore, because I read that it means "Love Of Lucifer". I don't know if that's true, but just in case.)
No Vox, you're not in trouble. :) The fact that we talk as we do, simply indicates that in our heart of hearts, we know we are not dealing with true Catholic hierarchy. We are defending the Faith against judeo-masonic heretics, as is our Catholic duty. That's why the real Bishop clopped us on the cheek, so long ago, and made us soldiers of Christ. You just keep up your good work Vox - Pope Leo would heartily approve of what you do!

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb,

To criticize a Bishop IN UNION with the apostolic line is not for us. I believe that is true,min union with Pope Leo XIII, et al.

But to criticize a Bishop who has LEFT the Apostolc line and has launched out on their own IS our duty. It so the LINE of Bishops we revere, INCLUDING the current occupant; not limited to the CURRENT occupant.

And we should be careful and cautious when we do criticize, ensuring we retain charity along that path, for the good of everyone including ourselves; acknowledging our own weakness and the possibility we may be wrong. "Blessed are the meek." As with so many things in life, the application is not always as clear as the Law itself.

I think the quotations you excerpt are important. I am reminded of King David who had the chance to kill Saul more than once, or have him killed, but would not out of respect for God's chosen one. He let him live and showed his King honour and respect to the end.

There is more to the story than these quotations, obviously, but those are certainly all true as well and we would be well advised to listen.

Mark Thomas said...

Brian, I differ with you in that I don't agree in any way with Chris Ferrara's nonsense in regard to Bishop Kevin Farrell.

Example: Chris Ferrara declared that "Farrell — as if there were any doubt — is fully on board with Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”

Conversely, Bishop Kevin Farrell said of Amoris Laetitia that "the Pope neither proposes or anticipates changes in the Church’s traditional teaching."

Why did Chris Ferrara claim that there isn't "any doubt" that Bishop Farrell is "fully on board with Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages"?

The fact is that in regard to Amoris Laetitia, Bishop Farrell declared that "the Pope neither proposes or anticipates changes in the Church’s traditional teaching"?

Why did Chris Ferrara concoct garbage, utter garbage, about Bishop Farrell? Why would Chris Ferrara invent such a claim? Why did Chris Ferrara concoct a narrative that portrayed Bishop Kevin Farrell as an heretical bishop determined to overthrow Church teaching?

I hope that Chris Ferrara reads the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2477: "Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2479: Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas:
Bishop Farrell says "the pope neither proposes or anticipates changes in the Church's traditional teaching." Hmmm, it seems to me that we now have a slew of theologians and Cardinals saying that Amoris Laetitia does exactly that, and the data is on their side. What Farrell is also quite careful to avoid is that you can do just as much damage by ignoring a teaching as by reversing it. This isn't much different from the changes that were made to the post-Vatican II Mass or the (hint, wink, nudge) acceptance of the mentality of contraception. To me his statement is equivalent to "move along, nothing to see here." It is intellectual dishonesty.

Woody said...

Mark Thomas, why is it you are not over at the remnant complaining about how Bishop Farrell is depicted?

Aqua said...

Mark Thomas,

Well, there are also those clear directions of Pope Leo XIII, above. I think all faithful Catholics should be aware of them and proceed very carefully in matters critical. I think the Church has always taught that, and reserved prudential judgements to the Shepherds, without fear of recrimination, condemnation and second-guessing from the Faithful. This is how it works in a healthy family; children to their father. This is how it should work in the Church. There are times a child MUST disobey their father (such as if he is asked to procure drugs, or prostitute herself for money). There are times a layman must disobey their Priest (such as when he is forced to accept false teachings that profane the Eucharist).

When it is clear our Shepherd(s) have departed from the clear teaching of the Church, that needs vigorous resistance. The burden of proof for such a thing should be fairly high, considering the gravity of such a charge before God and Man. But, once established, failing to act is worse than ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Thomas Rosica follows the inspirations of leftist pro-Abortion and Gay Marriage George Soros. He even will Lie to Faithful Catholics to cause confusion. Example Wikileaks leaked an email from George Soros was unhappy with the meeting with Mrs. Davis and the Pope in Philadelphia last year. So Fr. Thomas Rosica had lied when he had stated that Davis did not meet privately with the Pope but just met by chance in a large group when the Pope was traveling to New York. Fr. Thomas Rosica should be investigated further for his ties with George Soros and any of Soros different institutions and foundations. Apparently George Soros has been found to be connected to CRS and the contraception scandal in Africa.

Anonymous said...

Be cause they know Mark under a different name. Also at Church Militant Mark sounds so similarly to another provocateur there. Really just ignore Mark. He's like the Protestants you try to talk sense to the man and it goes through one ear right out the other.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas, why don't you quit being a coward, go over to the Remnant and bring this up with Chris Ferrara directly?

We want facts, not your useless conjecture.

Do you want me to do it for you?

Bishops F's useless statement, "the Pope neither proposes or anticipates changes in the Church’s traditional teaching"? is MEANINGLESS as evidence!

Farell, like other modernists could simply be stating that they don't see giving communion to adulterers or homosexuals or Lutherans as "changes" in the Church's traditional teaching, but rather some new connivance of deeper understanding of 'mercy' and such novelties in their time are perfectly allowable. Hence the fact that you continue to rely on such grotesque vagaries shows that it is NOT Chris Ferrara, but repeatedly YOU - MARK THOMAS - who should refrain from discussing topics you are demonstrably not capable of discussing.

Johnno said...

Here's what Chris Ferrara had to say about Bishop Farrell.


"Farrell—as if there were any doubt—is fully on board with Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” As he said of Amoris Laetitia shortly after its publication: “Some feel Pope Francis does not go far enough in addressing the hopes of those in irregular marriages, others who feel it compromises traditional teaching. In my opinion, it reflects the call of Jesus to his church to continue his healing and saving mission.” Farrell “also warmly praised comments on Amoris made by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, who was among the proponents of opening Communion to the divorced and remarried at the pope’s two Synods of Bishops on the family.”


Vox, I understand you keep this guy around as a check on your accuracy. But this is ridiculous.

Everyone else! If you're going to engage in discussion with Mark Thomas - CHECK & DOUBLE CHECK if he is quoting those he attacks or those he defends accurately. He is not trustworthy!

Johnno said...


It's doesn't matter how many nice things you can list in Bishop Farrel's favor.

If he is for giving Holy Communion to public adulterers, then he is going to Hell. Let him try to argue that he at least spoke up against abortion before the throne of God. Let's see how far that takes him for wanting to go FURTHER than the heresy in Amoris Letitia, and for praising Schönborn's interpretation of it.

This is the point discussed in the article by Ferrara, specifically with regards to Pope Francis moving his pieces on the chessboard to to grant this abuse of Christ's Body and Blood.

So don't go changing the topic in an attempt to mislead. One of your ever habitual tactics.

Michael Dowd said...

To: Peter Lamb

" scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff...." (Est Sane Molestum, Pope Leo XIII.)

How about Canon 212.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Dan said...

No need to worry. Isn't Luther now a model of a good Catholic? Didn't he say something along the lines of "go ahead a sin BIG so God is made happy when He forgives us?"

Our pope agrees yes?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mike, The point I was trying to emphasize was how different things are now compared to how they were. Pope Leo was teaching proper Catholic conduct in a real Catholic world. Your quotes are not in contradiction. They direct proper Catholic response to heretics and false teaching. Here are a few more:

St. Jerome says: "Why shouldn’t I report of things which others do not blush to do?" And St. Gregory the Great writes: "It is better that scandal arise than that truth be concealed." Even St. Thomas Aquinas says: "There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects." Our Lord Jesus Christ adds: "Who does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22, 35-36). I remember, here, the cry of St. Paul: "Beware of the dogs." (Phil. 3: 2-3). Today, even the Church of Vatican II is full of dogs. St. John, the beloved of Jesus, has even written: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house nor greet him." (2 Jn. 10) Today, however, the subverters of the doctrine of Christ, are not only greeted but also welcomed into the home, into the Church, and are honored and awarded with prestigious positions, although they are poisoners of souls and protesters of every “Truth” which in past, were always believed. Therefore, my position was always a "crusade" even for the right to remonstrate, for the right to be able to fulfill my duty as an "alter Christus," to proclaim, in fact, the "Truth." (Fr. Luigi Villa.)

The judgment of simple human reason, duly enlightened:
"Yes, human reason ... has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason ... But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it... they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions." (Liberalism is a Sin.)

For as Father Faber warned: "The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness!… We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege… Our charity is untruthful because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is not truthful… Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness."

Aqua said...

Johnno said...
"Mark Thomas, why don't you quit being a coward, go over to the Remnant and bring this up with Chris Ferrara directly?"

Johnno, I tried that once. My experience is that they don't allow contrary views.

It was similar to when you said: "Vox, I understand you keep this guy around as a check on your accuracy. But this is ridiculous". That's the kind of treatment I got at the Remnant. In my case, I questioned the Remnant's party line in support of Trump. I found out "contrary" was not allowed in "print". They simply deleted many of my posts. "Bravery"? How about "waste of time"?

The other thing I noticed there was anger; sometimes rather extreme. I sense it in your response to Mark, too. I want no part of that. I really think that is counterproductive to the Christian witness to the world. It is easy to change the channel. I changed off their channel for the sake of my soul to avoid becoming angry too. I'm sure they were happy to see me go. It was reciprocal. And I'll easily change off others like them.

To the point: Michael Dowd published some Catechism paragraphs governing the Laity questioned NG their Bishop,mot go along with statements earlier by Pope Leo XIII. Criticism of Bishops is allowed, but it must be done with respect; respect for the Office and the Apostolic Line they represent. Bp. Farrell goes to judgement like us all. He is over us, as ordained by God, but we must treat him as a Christian brother.

Some things I believe: I will not allow anger to consume me. I will not waste my time on blogs that censor contrary views. I will respect my Bishop, even when I disagree.

Eirene said...

In this comment Mark Thomas calls himself "a nobody".
Well, for a nobody he sure takes up a lot of space! Runner up for this dubious honour is Peter Lamb. Can t these commenters condense their responses? Or do I have to once more wearily scroll up and up into infinity?
Until I fall asleep.

Johnno said...

Brian, Mark Thomas has just deliberately misquoted someone, and then gone out of his way to caluminate and slander a fellow Catholic. This situation deserves rightful anger! Now, watch him continue as if nothing happened, make no apology and continue to play the pious lamb. There are rightful times for anger, an emotion God Himself has and gave us. It can indeed be abused, just as love and mercy can also be abused and perverted.

Michael Dowd said...

Agreeing with Johnno. If the prolixity doesn't get to you the content will. Yeats said it best: "Cast a cold eye/ On life, on death/(Mark Thomas) Horseman (would be commenters), pass by."

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Eirene, I wish you would comment/debate the content, not the length. Not pleading guilty to prolixity, because Catholic doctrine cannot be tedious - well not to me - although it might take space. :)