Wednesday 4 October 2017

Omega Pope

A heads up for readers on a La Stampa article by Emmett O'Regan which amounts to a shot across the bow to those who signed the filial correction of Omega-Pope Francis. Another article in the same publication is here, by Rocco Buttiglione whose article I have not yet read.

The O'Regan article makes the assertion that those who would offer correction to the Pope on seemingly heretical positions he would seem to have taken during his pontificate are  - by virtue of having objected to the teaching of Francis - dissenters of a nefarious kind. Several Church documents are put forward as evidence of this. We are seeing the beginning of the cementing of opposition to the filial correction from the Vatican insiders in the Francis camp.

In particular - and I believe this is what we can now call the Stephen Walford approach - they draw upon the Catechism - yes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church no less - to define the role of the Supreme Pontiff and the special assistance he is granted. Mr Walford is obsessed with the 'special assistance' given to each and every Pope. So much so that he holds that a Pope cannot resist, unlike the rest of the human race, God's grace or gifts, but that even if a Pope resisted each and every Catholic truth before his election, upon his election he is summarily raped by the Holy Ghost into submission.

Thus it is truthfully asserted:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (CCC 892)

I would suggest that - assuming Francis is the Pope - that divine assistance is given to him in a particular way. Can divine assistance be refused? The answer must be yes. If Francis has no intention of teaching the Faith (nothing suggests he did so as a Cardinal) then he is not constrained by the Holy Ghost to do so against his will. This would make a mockery not only of Catholic belief concerning the Papacy, but Catholic teaching on free will, the kind of free will that enabled the Blessed Virgin Mary to say yes to bearing the Son of God at the Annunciation, even though she was 'full of grace'. Unfortunately, the author of the article does not wish to contemplate the possibility of a Pope who refuses to act as Successor of St Peter, but rather as a Pope with no predecessors, one who would desist from his calling as Vicar of Christ in order to become Vicar of only himself.

Donum Vertitatis is also drawn upon to enlist help for the cause of defending the Pope against charges that he has taken heretical positions in his teaching Office. This document was, of course, written by one Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was at the CDF. Thus it is truthfully asserted:

One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. (Donum Veritatis 17) 

The writer then draws upon a special "dispensation" granted to theologians to withhold private assent from religious truths to point out to the Church any inconsistencies or problems with the Church's teachings. Really? The author asserts this but is it true?

In the CDF document Donum Veritatis, a special dispensation is given for trained theologians to withhold their religious assent from certain aspects of the Ordinary Magisterium they perceive to be potentially problematic, so that they can bring their findings and objections before the Magisterium for study and reflection. However, Donum Veritatis states that such non-assent should always be conducted privately, so as not to lead the faithful into confusion, and any dissenting theologians are instructed to avoid presenting their objections before the mass media.

Two points are raised here since the article clearly is:

a) an attack on those who would point out grievous errors that are being promoted during this pontificate alone, not a previous pontificate, not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, but on the problematic expressions and omissions of one Pope.

b)  a clumsy defence of the right to theologians to withhold private assent from religious truths for the purpose of religious enquiry.

Indeed, the tone of the article sounds like a great way to get liberal theologians (let alone doctrinally ambiguous Popes) who do not given their assent to divinely revealed truths to be let off the hook entirely. This is not what the document says. Here is what the Cardinal Ratzinger wrote but which the author has omitted because it does not serve the agenda of the Omega-Pope.
The theologian's code of conduct, which obviously has its origin in the service of the Word of God, is here reinforced by the commitment the theologian assumes in accepting his office, making the profession of faith, and taking the oath of fidelity.(21)

From this moment on, the theologian is officially charged with the task of presenting and illustrating the doctrine of the faith in its integrity and with full accuracy.

23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. (22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith. 

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent. 

Finally, Cardinal Ratzinger applies a concession to those theologians who would wish to make enquiry on certain subjects, we can presume, not those divinely revealed truths found in the Church's tradition and scripture.

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

Now, I doubt very much that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was thinking that his own document would be used against those 'theologians' (are they really all theologians?) who, in defending the Church's teachings, must include within that defence an admonition or rebuke of a Pope who refuses to do the same, but who, taking his advice from theologians who do not give their assent to divinely revealed truths, basically makes it up as he goes along. This would in fact be an anti-Ratzinger position because Joseph Ratzinger was always interested in clear doctrine supported by the Church's tradition and the infallible rule of faith to be found in the Church's Magisterium. He was also interested in emphasising the limits on the Pope's power over doctrine and the Church's creed and stressed that the Pope himself is bound to obedience to the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Readers, what we are seeing here is a brazen propaganda campaign which involves the manipulation of Church documents to point the finger at those who would defend the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - ironically, that which finds its most accessible expression in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Yes, this process even uses to that same Catechism to back it up. Thus it is truly Orwellian! It omits that in defending the right doctrines of the Catholic Church it has become necessary to draw attention to deficiencies in the Popes own teaching because they do not happily align with the teachings even of Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself, let alone St Paul and the Church Fathers and Francis's predecessors.

Ultimately, the question is in this insane period of the Church is the same one in different forms:

Is the Supreme Pontiff bound to obedience to Jesus Christ or not? I answer yes. How do you answer?
Is the Pope subject to the Word of God or not? I answer yes. How do you answer?
Is he bound to uphold all that each and every Catholic must hold to attain salvation or not? I answer yes. How do you answer?
Is the Pope a super-Catholic for whom the necessity to believe divinely revealed truths is abrogated by virtue of his Office? I answer no. How do you answer?
And if he behaves as if he is above even Christ, can he be corrected by anyone beneath him in rank? I answer yes, for the express purpose of the defence and salvation of souls. How do you answer?


Sacerdos said...

Being elected Pope doesn't confer a special grace, more that receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders, priest and bishops can teach heresy, why shouldn't a Pope who rejects the Magisterium of his predecssors.

mark wauck said...

Yesterday InfoVaticana carried an interview with Mariano Fazio, #2 at Opus Dei, in which Fazio savaged several Opus Dei members who had signed the Filial Correction--accusing them of "scandalizing the whole Church with manifestations of disunity." Presumably they are now at risk of having a mill stone fastened around their neck and being tossed into the sea.

I suggest that this action by Opus Dei in siding with Bergoglio fits exactly within your narrative. It is an attack not only certain members of Opus Dei but implicitly on all who would sign the Filial Correction or sympathize with it. It is even an implicit attack on the Dubia Brothers. It is a warning that Opus Dei stands four square with Bergoglio.

susan said...

You put up a lot of words to try to deal with a false assumption.

Here's your money quote,,,"assuming Francis is the Pope".

Peter cannot do what this man is doing. Peter cannot try to destroy the Church, else the promises of Christ stand for nothing.

ergo; Jorge Mario Bergoglio cannot be Peter. go from there. the evidence ABOUNDS.

And as long as we keep treating the false assumption as a truth, the carbuncle will seat deeper and deeper, and grow more and more painful and disfiguring. Better to pop the boil'll hurt, but not NEAR as much as later.

sadly, we would appear to have no shepherds left with either testosterone or chest.

Anonymous said...

If these are 'theologians,' how come it took heresy on adultery for them to finally speak up against a VC2 Pope? The laity (including non-Catholics) can see the pope is teaching heresy on this issue (not to mention on contraception, abortion, fornication, sodomy, euthanasia and assisted suicide).

These articles raise the issues one would expect theologians to be raising:

This post is interesting for the chart at the end:

Anonymous said...

Bones, I can't be the only one horrified by your use of the word 'rape'.
I cannot bring myself to repeat your actual phrase.
Are you repeating words used by Mr Walford?
As a Reformed Christian and former Roman Catholic, I do not believe that the bishop of Rome is the literal successor to Peter, although I still treasure my first edition of Morris West's profound novel, The Shoes of the Fisherman.
But I recognize that some of the greatest of the early fathers interpreted the words of our Lord ('to you I will give the keys of the Kingdom') in a way consistent with Roman Catholic teaching on the petrine office.
I am aware that Mungo, the great patron saint of my city of Glasgow, recognised the petrine office.
As did such heroes as Bernard of Clairvaux, Robert Bellarmine, Teresa of Avila, JH Newman, Hilaire Belloc, Chesterton, Waugh, Maisie Ward, Meriol Trevor etc.
So I have sympathy with your dilemma.
Catherine of Siena said the church must follow the pope even if he leads the church into hell.
As a young Catholic in the 1970s (reading Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Hans Urs Von Balthasar etc.) I did not agree with Saint Catherine's remark.
None of we Vatican II Catholics did.
We regarded the Council as 'the little springtime of the church' as Brother Roger of Taize put it.
We had such hopes for the world in those days.
Let's remember the saying.
The Pope has spoken, the case rests.
Christ has spoken, the Pope rests.

John Haggerty

The Bones said...


No he didn't use the word 'rape', perhaps its a poor word to use, 'force'.

The Bones said...

He implies heavily that Popes cannot resist God or grace.

Anonymous said...

That the popes cannot resist God's grace is a beautiful phrase.
Irresistible, petrine grace.
It was while reading the fiction of J.F. Powers that I felt drawn to attend Mass again, here in St Aloysius Church, where G Manley Hopkins once served as priest, and at the equally lovely St. Andrew's Cathedral, down by the River Clyde.
The priests in the fiction of Powers, such as 'Morte d'Urban' and 'Wheat That Springeth Green', are men with comical faults, but men imbued with the grace of their office.
As Flannery O'Connor said of the Eucharist, 'If it's just a symbol, then what good is it to me?'
There is something missing in Evangelical services.
A friend of my own generation who was 'born again' at 20, said Protestant churches haven't given him much help in how to live a holier life.
He thought John Henry Newman had real holiness.
I told him of three English ladies I used to know in Stirling, all Catholic converts.
'In each case,' I said, 'the Christ-centred lives of the priests impressed them.'
Incidentally, Waugh greatly admired the fiction of J.F. Powers.

John Haggerty

Physiocrat said...

We should not be bothering our little heads with the goings on in Rome, and it is bad for us to do so. This goes back a very long way and evolved gradually more than 1000 years ago.

It has its origin in the way Matthew 16:18 is interpreted. Didn't the other four ancient Patriarchs walk away separately and independently at different times? The Catholic church is not just the (largest) bit of which the Pope is head.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Physiocrat.
Vatican-watching can degenerate into idle curiosity, a prurient form of gossip.
Think of 'The Young Pope' on television.
Only a cynical Italian could have written and directed it.
My late Aunt Ginetta who was a devout Italian Catholic would never have watched it.
She was buried with the Rosary in her hands.
We work out our salvation in fear and trembling as St. Paul wrote.
But Rome is crucial nonetheless.
What happens there has an impact on the world.
I have felt the presence of God most profoundly in the free churches and in the Catholic Church.
Strange, considering that the free churches have no time for Catholicism.
What did Hilaire Belloc write?

'One thing in this world is different from all others. It has a personality and a force. It is recognized and (when recognized) most violently loved or hated. It is the Catholic Church. Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth. Outside it is the night.'

John Haggerty

Mary Kay said...

I answer your questions as you did. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Your blog is terrible and deceptive, and you can't even
quote scripture properly.

Barbara Jensen said...

I agree with Susan's comments. There is abounding evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope. The inevitable schism, which already exists in truth, eventually will be concretized and the true Mass will be in homes as part of an underground Church. Catherine of Sienna did not live during the horror of Bergoglio. Yes, there have been other bad and heretical popes, but no pope in history has trashed and continues to trash the Divine Revelation of Jesus as does antipope Bergoglio. He will not be stopped and he clearly has a lying agenda which correlates with the masonic new world order. Anyone can see it.
Pope John Paul, with the assistance of Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, kept the wolves at bay for years and years. Both prelates wrote prolifically and with orthodoxy for the Church they love. Evidently Anonymous, who has derided them in his post, totally rejects the Second Vatican Council. How very sad, as one of the premises of that Council is the affirmation of the ''call to Holiness' for each Christian. The deplorable condition in the Church will not abate until souls become holy and become prayer for Jesus. Bergoglio is a symptom and the mouthpiece of the poison that has infiltrated the Church. Deriding true Popes (JP11 and Benedict XV1) exhibits an inability to discern the evil from the good. It is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Bones said...


Thanks for dropping by, do say hello again.

Anonymous said...

The Second Vatican Council opened with a declaration of goodwill towards the world and all its people.
The liberal anti-communist monthly journal 'Encounter' covered Vatican II in some depth; the 'Encounter' correspondent was deeply moved by the occasion as were many other non Catholics.
One narrative says that the Council merely opened the lid on a spirit of reform and dissatisfaction which had been building up inside the Church over many years.
Rosemary Haughton wrote that the Holy Spirit was now blowing through the whole world, though only a few knew whose breath was blowing on their forehead (see 'The Knife Edge of Experience' R Haughton).
My French teacher (a former pupil of St Aloysius College, Glasgow) said that Pope John XXIII had 'dragged the Church kicking and screaming into the 20th Century'.
Even at 17 years of age I thought his judgment simplistic.
The proponent of the 'nouvel theologie' Yves Congar, who had been regarded with suspicion under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, was a peritus of Vatican II.
The writings of Teilhard de Chardin were a huge influence on the Council.
There was a saying that the Church did its governance in Rome but its thinking in France.
Many new theologians said they felt stifled under Pius XII's pontificate.
Pere Teilhard is little read now, and physicist Jacques Monod long ago trashed his books as bad science.
And there are other Vatican II narratives that run counter to my French teacher's rather brutal summary.
Pope Benedict XVI, while supporting the many good aims of the Council, also pointed to 'a congeries of errors' within Vatican II theology.
He broke with Hans Kung on the issue.
Surprisingly Marcel Lefebvre said he was not opposed to the Council in principal but declared that the changes to the liturgy were uncatholic and illegitimate (see the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 2002).
The Catholic lay philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand said, 'Truly if one of the devils in CS Lewis's The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.'
Regarding Barbara's remark about 'keeping the wolves at bay', see Malachi Martin's book, 'The Jesuits - The Society of Jesus, Pope John Paul II and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church'.
John Paul spoke of 'the force' within the Vatican which opposed him.
What was the force?
Where did Bergoglio stand?
I rather think that the best books about Vatican II have still to be written.

John Haggerty
Pope John Paul

Anonymous said...

Assuming B. is the pope, the theologians true and faithful theologians, and so on, but this is not the case, B. is the omega destroyer of RCC, called from Argentina to do the final job, after him the flood, but non praevalebunt and we still have, thanks God, a real Pope, let's pray for him, he's turned 90 and he's so frail, though he shines like a star.Thank you, Mr. Bones you're a braveheart, they're but a few in these times.

Barbara Jensen said...

The 'force' was the devil. It is the same 'force' at work today within the institutional Church. Both John Paul 11 and Pope Benedict were valid popes. Bergoglio is not. Unless this is acknowledged and proclaimed by the orthodox clergy, the true Church will be underground.

Anonymous said...

I have just come across a prophetic statement.
'Liberal Catholicism is an exhausted project.' Francis Cardinal George of Chicago.
The quotation is from an online essay, What Really Happened at Vatican II by Richard Neuhaus, on the First Things blog.
Also online, What Went Wrong With Vatican II by Atila Guimaraes, who writes most carefully on what is an immense subject.
Finally, spare a thought for Jack Lane's Irish mother (born in 1916) who watched with sorrow as everything she had held dear about the Catholic Church (and Catholic piety) was brutally dismantled, or downplayed, such as the recital of the Rosary and the timeless way of receiving the Eucharist at Mass.
See Vatican 2 - What Went Wrong by Jack Lane.

Is it true that Pope John Paul II wished to see the return of the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, but later backed down from its implementation?
Perhaps this could be a future post, Bones.

John Haggerty, Glasgow.

Anonymous said...

Readers of 'That These Bones...' should watch the following on YouTube:

1) What Francis Really Believes.
2) Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination Are Invalid (this film is shocking).
3) Archbishop Lefebvre Speaks Frankly About the Pope (1976).
4) Papal Imposters Full Movie
5) The Election of Cardinal Siri in 1958.

I was at St Pius X primary school (Glasgow) in 1958 when it seemed that a new pope had been elected; for a full five minutes white smoke issued from the chimney of St Peter's.
We were then told this was an 'accident'.
But rumours persisted that the beloved Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been elected as pontiff, and for reasons dark and mysterious had been persuaded to refuse.
Roncalli was announced soon after as Pope John XXIII.
Without doubt Roncalli was fascinated by the occultist teachings of Rudolf Steiner, by Freemasonry and pagan Theosophy.
Pope Pius XII had held Roncalli in suspicion.
But the false and altered Mass wasn't ushered in until 1969 by Pope Paul VI.
It is claimed that Paul VI had no great devotion to the Rosary.
He wanted a Lord's Supper that would please the Protestants (and Freemasons).
At least 60 per cent of the Offertory Prayers of the Old Mass were removed.
Anyone who spoke up for the Tridentine Rite was frowned upon.
I remember the anger of a Glasgow bishop when members of his flock asked why they could no longer attend the Old Mass.
The 'Siri conspiracy' may well attract excitable minds, but consider that Cardinal Siri never once said, 'No, I was NOT elected pope.'
Instead, he said with his hands covering his face, 'I am bound by the secret.'
My primary teacher, who was devoted to Our Lady's appearance at Fatima, spoke to us about Cardinal Siri's love of the church.
Detesting the destructive forces unleashed by Vatican II, Cardinal Siri said:
'If the Church was not divine, the Council would have buried it.'

John Haggerty

Anonymous said...

If the above comments look in any way hostile, let me say that I consider confessional Protestantism to be in the gravest danger from such false movements as Progressive Christianity and the writings of men such as Marcus Borg.
Progs tend to gather under the Patheos website, and they all support 'gay marriage'.
Borg founded the infamous Jesus Seminar in California and he is very bright.
A number of sound Reformed theologians have exposed his heresies.
But regarding the Catholic Church in which I was raised and to which I owe everything, here is some suggested online reading:

Siri Thesis - the
They Think They've Won - SSPXAsia (Good on the early theology of Joseph Ratzinger).
The New Church of Karl Rahner.
Vatican II When Cardinal Ottaviani's Mike Was Turned Off.
The Pope Most Quoted By Vatican II ( i.e. Pius XII).
Cardinal Siri or Pope Francis? Suspcipe Domine.
Rorate Caeli - No Concession to the Spirit of This World.
Rorate Caeli - Cardinal Siri and the Immensity That Awaits Us.

On YouTube:
Vatican 2 gave us a new religion (the late Fr. Gregory Hesse a canon lawyer)
Masons in the hierarchy, the Fatima center (the late Fr. Gruner)
Masonic Leader: We triumped at Vatican II.
Bishop Williamson talks about Cardinal Siri.
We are the true church - Rome has a new religion.
Vatican II Council of Apostasy.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Catholic religion vs new religion.
Malachi Martin on Archbishop Lefebvre, John Paul II and the destruction of the Papacy.
A Vatican II bishop reflects on the council's legacy (Bishop William J McNaughton)

With the exception of Bishop McNaughton, the thesis in these posts and podcasts is that Vatican II and the New Mass were planned long in advance of the Council's opening, and that the progressives won the day.
The moral collapse in the church has followed.
In Ireland, total collapse and homosexual marriage on the statute books.
Martin Luther said:

'When the Mass has been overthrown, I think we shall have overthrown the papacy. I think it is upon the Mass that the papacy wholly rests. Everything will of necessity collapse when their abominable Mass collapses.'

Last night I discovered one of my late father's Catholic Truth Society tracts.
It is titled - The Mass Our Only Salvation.

John Haggerty

Anonymous said...

Yesterday I ventured into my favourite secondhand bookshop and came upon a copy of a book titled 'Question of Conscience' by Father Tony Flannery.
Fr. Flannery is an Irish Redemptorist priest and founder member of the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland.
In 2012 he was summoned to Rome by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
He was told that his writings which had appeared in the Redemptorist magazine 'Reality' were unacceptable and contrary to the teaching of the Church.
You can see Fr. Flannery on YouTube:
Can the Catholic Church be salvaged? Tony Flannery says yes.
Question of Conscience - Presented by Fr. Tony.
Fr. Tony Flannery Mass.
I am halfway through Fr. Flannery's book and I am moved by his love of the Church and his lifelong commitment to the Gospel and to his vocation as a missionary priest.
'A Question of Conscience' (2013) has a foreword by Mary McAleese.
It can be ordered from Londubh Books, 18 Casimir Avenue, Harold's Cross, Dublin 6w, Ireland. Or

Thanks. John Haggerty

Anonymous said...

My sincere apologies, Bones.
I have just watched Fr. Flannery in Trinity College Dublin (YouTube) debating the question, 'Can the Catholic Church be salvaged?'.
In his opening remarks he quotes Sister Joan Chittister, whom he describes as one of the most important voices in the Catholic world today.
Sister Joan is interviewed by Oprah Winfrey (YouTube) in a talk entitled (I kid you not) 'How To Grow Your Soul' or 'Super Soul Sunday'.
Chittister gives us the Oprah gospel of Rudolf Steiner, Illuminati and pure witchcraft.
This is'New Age Christianity' or as Karl Barth called it, 'the old snake of gnosticism'.
A commentator says of Sister Joan's occult beliefs:
'Roman Catholic is kinda pushing the envelope. Neo-pagan would be a better moniker.'
There are a number of warnings on YouTube by American women who say that neo-paganism has even infiltrated Evangelical churches.
I'd say the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is right to keep a wary eye on Father Flannery, and the neo-pagan Chittister too I hope.
The late Father Gruner (YouTube) from the Fatima Center is the sounder theologian by far - listen to him on 'What about lay eucharistic ministers?'
The unnamed priest (YouTube) who speaks on 'The real truth about homosexuality' is also very sound.
He opens his address with the solemn prayer that ended Low Mass before the Vatican II modernists had it removed for their own dark reasons:

'Saint Michael the archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.'

John Haggerty

Anonymous said...

The priest who addresses 'The truth about homosexuality' is Fr. Michael Rodriguez, and I shall be following his podcasts on YouTube.
The architects of the Gay Revolution in the USA were Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madison; the one a neuro-psychiatrist and the other a political scientist and PR consultant; both homosexual.
They modelled their campaign on the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties.
Take a look at the YouTube talk on the New Mass, The Cleverness of the Revisers: 1970 General Instruction.
A career ecumenicist, Fr. Emile Lengeline said of the new 1970 Mass, 'it kept us out of the dead end of post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice'.
But Lengeline seems a rather shadowy figure, and my internet inquiries have drawn a blank on this strange German priest.
Father Anthony Cekada (who reminds me of Chesterton's heroic Father Brown) has a YouTube talk, The Creation of the New Mass 1948-1969, and names Joseph Jungmann and Annabale Bugnini as the grey eminences and improvisers of a series of gradual liturgical changes which really eclipsed the Tridentine rite.
A third priest, Louis Bouyer, was a proponent of 'assembly theology' which plays down the Mass as a sacrifice.
Also on Youtube: Catholics, You Have Been Robbed of the Mass.
Marcel Lefebvre is now emerging as the lonely prophet whose warnings went unheeded.
The Archbishop makes me think of Cardinal Manning; I am glad to see you are reading Cardinal Manning on your other blog.
The good Cardinal corresponded with Hilaire Belloc's sister, and helped end the prostitution of children in British streets - see 'Diaries and Letters of Marie Belloc Lowndes 1911 - 1947' (Chatto and Windus 1971).
Finally, I have just purchased a copy of Jacques Maritain's last book, 'The Peasant of the Garonne' (1968 Geoffrey Chapman).
At 85, the old lay theologian was already expressing his reservations about Vatican II.
Here he is on page 261 speaking of Teilhard de Chardin:
'In an attempt to give support to his ideas of a cosmic Christ, Teilhard invokes the thought of St. Paul, but in doing so he teilhardizes Paul in a way which cannot be accepted.'
I was reading Robert Speaight's biography of Pere Teilhard in 1974 during a retreat at Stonyhurst School in Lancashire; I remember taking Newman's 'Apologia Pro Vita Sua' from the library (the school was on holiday) and wondering what John Henry would have made of this enigmatic French Jesuit whose gnostic ideas influenced Vatican II.
'Men of Galatia who has bewitched you?'

Thanks, John Haggerty

Anonymous said...

Hey Bones, I have just listened to - '13. New Eucharistic Prayers: False History, Hippie Theology' (YouTube) by the ever dependable Father Anthony Cekada.
Perhaps Pope Francis will tune in, or we are in for the next liturgical disaster.
John Haggerty said...

Just come across an item on the web - 'U.S. nuns haunted by dead Jesuit: the ghost of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.'
No, this is not spiritualism, but it is just as dangerous.
It appears that thousands of American sisters hold to Teilhard's idea of 'conscious evolution'.
This says mankind is evolving through the integration of science, spirituality and technology towards some Omega Point.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is in a quandary. Does he cut the sisters off from Rome?
Pope Francis likes to quote Teilhard so the situation is not just hopeless, it's critical.
We need to speak plainly: Teilhard was a fascinating man and a holy priest but his theology was Twaddle with a capital T.
We have to get back to true Catholicity and sound Catholic doctrine.
Bad ideas need to be retired.
The New Age is as hackneyed as postmodernism.
I am rereading the memoir of Monsignor Ronald Knox, 'A Spiritual Aeneid' (1918).
The Monsignor says that 'authority played a large part in my belief, and I could not now find that any source of authority was available outside the pale of the Roman Catholic Church.' Page 212.
Catholic clergy and laity need to be re-enchanted with what G.K. Chesterton called the Romance of Orthodoxy.
In spite of his dazzling intellect Chesterton submitted (humbly) to the authority of Rome's teaching as did the brilliant Ronald Knox.
So let us pray for Cardinal Muller, a man with a very difficult job.

J Haggerty

joannis said...

EVERYTHING points to Bergoglio being an antipope. I am absolutely convinced of it. I can't go through all the substantiated facts here and now. Both prima facie and ipso facto Bergoglio is an heretic and antipope. As Susan said, Peter cannot possibly teach thus - to destroy three sacraments at once: marriage, eucharist, and penance! @monkjona

The Pope Who Won't Be Buried

It has been a long time since I have put finger to keyboard to write about our holy Catholic Faith, something I regret, but which I put larg...