SHOCK: It turns out that the Roman Catholic Church is not Indefectible. Who knew? “We all have defects”

Pope Francis offered HERE what he considers a true example of the “ecumenism of prayer,” telling journalists:

In one European city, there is a good relationship between the Catholic archbishop and the Lutheran archbishop. The Catholic archbishop was scheduled to come to the Vatican on Sunday evening, and he called me to say that he would arrive on Monday morning. When he arrived, he told me: “Excuse me, but yesterday the Lutheran archbishop had to go to one of their meetings, and he asked me: ‘Please, come to my cathedral and lead the worship.’” Eh, there’s fraternity. Coming this far is a lot. And the Catholic bishop preached. He did not do the Eucharist, but he preached. This is fraternity.

Fraternity is placed above love. Fraternity replaces the Gospel. Lying to people you call your friends, risking their eternal damnation for the sake of fraternity, is about the most uncharitable thing I can think of.

He then explained that, as cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, he too was in the habit of preaching in Protestant churches.
“I was invited to the Scottish church to preach a number of times,” he said. “I went there, I preached. You can do it. You can walk together. Unity, fraternity, extending a hand, looking after each other, not speaking ill of others.”
We all have defects,” he added, “but if we walk together let’s leave our defects to the side. Let the spinsters criticize us.”

He’s not talking about PEOPLE having defects, he’s talking about all “churches” having defects, including the Catholic Church (lower case “churches” in scare quotes because they aren’t “churches” at all.
Do you submit to this man as the true Roman Pontiff?
Spinsters for Christ… UNITE!

26 thoughts on “SHOCK: It turns out that the Roman Catholic Church is not Indefectible. Who knew? “We all have defects””

  1. Well said. This is the outrage of the day. Please Lord have mercy on us and convert the Pope. We are at our wits end…Wherever that is.

  2. Unity is only possible in Christ.
    Unity in Christ is only possible in the Roman Catholic Church.
    Jesus taught this (John 17: 20-23; Matthew 10:40). His Church has always taught this.
    Anyone who says anything other is an antichrist – including esp Antichrist, his Prophet etc.

    1. Dear Aqua, it is difficult to understand to what your referring your statement. Does this mean that all who believe in Christ constitutes Unity. But you say that “Unity in Christ is only possible in the Roman Catholic Church.” Whatever you intend, the teaching of the Church is that the “Unity both of Faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis: D 1960)” This can be found in “Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine” by Ott, page 303. In other words, the Pope is the visible principle of Unity, Christ the Invisible principle.

      1. Jesus Christ is all. Not a “principle”. A person. Second Person of the Trinity. We receive Him Body, Soul, Divinity in the Eucharist. We face Him in adoration at the Tabernacle. He is with us as we confess our sins. He is with us as we pray. He is alive and personally present in every Roman Catholic Church.
        The Pope is a visible sign of unity to the extent he is in unity first with Jesus Christ and then all other Popes in union with Him. The Pope has one purpose: to lead Mankind to Jesus Christ. He is a “visible principle” of unity for that purpose alone. Without Christ, the Pope is nothing.
        And that is why I mention as the key, John 17’s unity prayer: “My prayer is not for them (the Apostles; incl the future Pope) alone. I pray also for those who believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may he one as we are one. I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you have loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know you have sent me. I have made you known to them, *and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them*”.
        Unity among Mankind is only possible in Jesus Christ, author of Life, King of all creation.
        Unity in Christ is only possible in the Roman Catholic Church, built on the Cornerstone of St. Peter, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail. That is the *only* way to true unity.
        “I in them. You in me. So they may be brought to complete unity”.
        Christ died, rose, ascended to open up the Blessed Trinity to Mankind. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the only way to unity, salvation, eternal life in God.

  3. It is my belief that the words of Our Lord and/or Our Lady pertaining to an urgent and public warning
    about the Church is more worthy of belief than any sensible situation, event, “prudence” or
    judgments of the natural order. This can be understood by the fact that the Consecration of Russia
    not having been done as yet–a so called prudential decision by Pope John XXIII and his successors–
    has led to the crisis we have today.
    Our Lady at Akita told Sr. Agnes: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres. . . churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demons will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.” (This is an approved apparition by Bishop Ito of the Diocese of Niigata wherein Akita is situated, but due to a diplomatic decision Cardinal Ratzinger did not officially approve it as head of the CDF, although he privately approved it and urged its promotion worldwide.) FACT #1
    Words of Sr. Lucia to Bishop Caffarra when, having been asked by Pope John Paul II to set up the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family (“The Institute’s establishment was to be announced at the Holy Father’s Wednesday audience on May 13, 1981. Because of the attempted assassination, the Institute’s Apostolic Constitution, Magnum Matrimonii Sacramentum, was instead given on October 7, 1982, the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary”–From the Institute’s Web Page): “The final battle between Satan and Christ will be over marriage and the family.” (Although stated by Sr. Lucia these do not come from Sr. Lucia herself, but from Our Lady or Our Lord, because Sr. Lucia never makes a categorical statement concerning a prophecy on her own. If she draws a conclusion from our Lady’s words or speculates on something said by Our Lady, she always qualifies it by indicating it is her own thought. Personally I believe that this a discrete warning that actually comes from the unrevealed part of the 3rd Secret). FACT #2
    Of course there is the statement by Pope Paul VI about the Smoke of Satan having entered the Vatican
    “through some crevice” and also Father Amorth, while the chief exorcise of Rome, was shouting from the housetops that Satan was in the Vatican, that there are Bishops, Monsignors and Priests who do not believe in God. (I have the documentation for this). FACT #3
    Francis is systematically destroying the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, He betrayed the True Church in China turning it over to the Communists, about whom Our Lady warned at Fatima, and this alone ought to be enough to recognize the involvement of the demonic in the Church. He resurrects, protects, covers for, promotes and employs those whose lifestyle is nothing but demonic, but also promotes other practices absolutely contrary to and destructive of Marriage and Family as well as contrary to the Law of God. And NO FAITHFUL CATHOLIC questions his attack on Marriage and the Family!!! Is is not precisely this attitude and program of Francis that causes the division between Cardinals and Bishops? FACT #4
    It is my opinion that it is tantamount to heresy to say that God would allow that someone under the control of Satan can have Official Power to destroy Christ’s Church. Would any Superior General of the SSPX or Fr. Gruner when still living, even though they are not the Church, allow someone under the control of Satan to take over those apostolates? So why would Our Lord allow such a situation—even IF the Church is Infallible and Indefectible? SR. LUCIA TOLD CARDINAL CARRARRA THAT THE FINAL BATTLE BETWEEN CHRIST AND SATAN WOULD BE OVER MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY. IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL–A BATTLE BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN NO LESS–HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT EVIL, I.E., ONE UNDER THE CONTROL OF SATAN, COULD HAVE OFFICIAL CONTROL OF THE CHURCH? SUCH A STATE COULD ONLY BE DESCRIBED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOING BATTLE AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, A TRULY INSANE REALITY WERE IT POSSIBLE TO BE TRUE!!!
    Yet, practically the whole Catholic world, including Prelates, the Intelligentsia, the so courageous Theologians believe that this can BE! On the other hand, they just don’t seem to understand the possibility that God in his Providence uses secondary causes to accomplish his Plans. And because Pope John XXIII and Successors refused to make the Consecration of Russia, which Consecration would have eliminated Satan’s plan to take over the Church and destroy Marriage and the Family, GOD USED PLAN B. That Plan was to have Benedict
    maintain the Papacy so that Satan, through Francis and his legitimate successors, could not destroy, in an official way, the Catholic Church. Beside that, Benedict was being forced to do what he know was wrong and prevented from doing what he know ought to be done through the use of the Media which was under demonic control (of the Freemasons and Communists); thus, by his Renunciation on 11 February 2013 he only placed himself in a position, in an official way, that was analogous to a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII), a Pope in hiding (Pope Caius) or a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory the Great). In my book, Benedict has saved the True Church of Christ! He had to forgo the great personal good of Martyrdom, in order to salvage the much greater Common Good of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Nevertheless, he will still be martyred, as the Pope in the Vision of the Third Secret. But he is hated today, and those who cheered him on during his Active Pontificate have turned their backs on him. Could it be said that they are modern day Judases. They do not understand what he really did.
    Then, to add insult to injury well meaning and kind hearted men wishing not to offend against Charity, as if it is charity to let an impostor act as if he is Pope, lay aside common sense and a basic principle of Philosophy, namely, “Actio sequitur esse” (“Action follows being”). Not only do our shepherds ignore a once cheered Pope walking around the Vatican where Popes usually live with white Papal soutane, demanding he be called His Holiness Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and having as his Secretary the Prefect of the Papal Household! But furthermore, with the intellectual attitude that we don’t have to believe in so-called “private” revelation, the vision of Jacinta, described by Sr. Lucia in here Third Memoir is dismissed like the stub of one of those oh so dangerous cigarettes being discarded with the flick of a finger. In that vision Jacinta saw: “the holy Father in very a big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him” (Third Memoir of St. Lucia).
    Another example which truly demonstrates the Indefectibility of the Church, if you don’t mind, concerns Pope Paul VI. The paragraph immediately below is a comment on One Peter Five by Steve Skojec; the paragraph following is my comment:
    “Paul VI, in October 1967, during the first Synod of Bishops held in the Vatican, had the Cardinal Secretary of State ask for an opinion on contraception in view of the publication of the encyclical. Only 26 of the 200 bishops present produced a written response. Of these, most said they were in favor of some opening to the pill, while 7 were against. But Pope Montini, who had already removed the subject from the Council discussion and had listened to the opinions of a commission of experts (the majority of whom were in favor), did not believe that there was any reason to change the position held up to that moment by his predecessors and promulgated a few months after his Humanae vitae, which came out in July – fifty years ago – lacking however the chrism of infallibility, as some would have liked.”
    Let’s take a closer look at what happened in 1968. Of those who responded to a request for an opinion
    on Birth Control a mere 27% were opposed. Without doubt those who never responded most likely
    could be considered to have been in favor of changing the Church’s constant and consistent teaching against B.C.; otherwise, given the hot topic it was, the ones against a change would have replied. Then there are the
    majority of “experts” who wanted a change. But when push come to shove, P. VI surprised the whole
    world and condemned B.C in his Encyclical Humanae vitae. What had happened? I don’t think it can be denied that because of the protection promised to St. Peter by Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against It (the Church)–Mt 16:18 and the further serious prerogative: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven….”–Mt 16: 19. Note that Our Lord DID NOT say “WHATEVER IS INFALLIBLE THAT YOU BIND ON EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN….” And then with His prayer for Peter that “thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” Lk, 22:32, the words and protection of Christ are eternal and provide the protection which is called the “Gift of Indefectibility”. Please read and reread the following quote from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
    “The GIFT OF INDEFECTIBILITY is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e., the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it into being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to war all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. . . .
    “It was said above that one part of the Church’s gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime mode. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about (The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913, Vol. 3 under “Church” Pg. 756).
    Can it not be said that what happened to P. VI, that that which prompted him to go against a tsunami of opposition was the protection of Our Lord through the gift of Indefectibility? Can anyone really in all
    sincerity and certitude say that this in fact happened or is happening with Francis? BE HONEST DEAR FRIENDS. If one can’t, the question that cannot but arise is: is Francis the true Pope? God’s protection extends only to a TRUE POPE. Now the old dictum of St.Ambrose is most appropriate here, Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia–where Peter is, there is the Church. And if Francis is not Pope, then who is the most likely candidate when there is an elderly figure dressed in white and living in that “big house” in the Vatican walking around? The only alternative at this point is Benedict by reason of his Renunciation only from the “exercise” of the Powers of Governing, Teaching and Sanctifying, who is called “Pope”, dresses as a Pope, lives where a Pope lives (Actio sequitur esse) and has provided a certain “expanded” ministry, as Dom Ganswein puts it, whereby the two MEMBERS, not two Popes, of that expanded COOPERATORES VERITATIS, namely, Dom Ganswein and Benedict, (or it could be taken as Benedict and Our Lord) provide an abbreviated personal form of the Power of Sanctifying, due not only to the right Benedict has to the Papacy, though prevented from “exercising” it for the good of the Church, but also as Pope, he is as Christ’s Vicar, the Supreme Lawmaker and guardian of the Church and without doubt legitimately puts the virtue of Equity into practice!!! Equity or, as it is also referred to, Epikeia, is that virtue which comes into play when, due to an unprecedented situation that Canon Law could not foresee, the existing law is compensated for so that that existing law does not bring about harm to the Church.
    And since the primary element in the Visibility of the Church is the Pope, we MUST recognize that
    there is an “emperor” without clothes who presents himself as Pope and turn our attention to the
    True Pope. Furthermore, because social unity, i.e., the unity of the Faithful, must first and foremost
    begin through embracing of the unchangeable and integral Doctrine of the Church, as provided by Sacred Scripture and Tradition, these fonts of Revelation MUST be set forth by the true Successor of Peter. And only to the extent that the integral Unity of Doctrine and PRACTICE based upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition can there be true unity of the Faithful. But ONLY with the true unity of the Faithful can the Church be Visible. It’s about time those in authority act like true shepherds taking the bull by the horns, thereby giving encouragement to the Faithful and in return receiving the respect due to those whom Christ has chosen as Pastors for His Church..

      1. Mark, I have no problem with that. Besides, you’re in charge of this blog. When you do, please try to adjust those broken sentences. How they got that way, I have no idea. I try to get my two cents (more like two thousand?) in when there is some connection.

      2. Father if you cut and paste text into the comment box that usually results in the broken sentences and odd paragraph breaks. They can be removed on edit. Just a tip.

      3. This reply is for JTLiuzza: Many thanks for your advice JT, but I did copy the Comment that I had written in the latest OpenOffice Text program, which is compatible with Microsoft Word–supposedly. I’ve had no problems elsewhere when I do this, so perhaps there’s a glitch on the WordPress program used here. It wouldn’t be so bad in only one could “edit” a comment, because it seems to happen only after I “Post” the comment. I will certainly try to do better next time.

    1. @frdbelland I still got the impression that you try to put everything to your posts. This creates problems, at least on my part, in recognizing intention of your posts. Can I ask you to put thesis you want to present/defend as a first sentence of your posts. It will be very helpful.
      I’m guessing that your position is:
      – BaF (Bergolio aka Francis) is imposter
      – B16 is true pope
      – B16 is a sint and everything (?) he does/did is perfect
      correct me if there are other points you made and I missed.
      Let me throw some comments where I have doubts or disagree with your statements.
      Re present situation in the Church you wrote:
      “So why would Our Lord allow such a situation”
      Possible (very possible) answer can be found in Jeremiah, where God is warning that if people wont repent and convert, He will send priests which lead them to hell. Note that most (all) apparitions call for penance. In my opinion this request, like others, is not fulfilled, at least not as as I think it should be.
      That may be hint to your answer. I do not insist that this is the only answer.
      Note that situation we are in seems to be foretold in Apocalipse, La Salette, in prophecy of St Francis and others. Where we warned that Satan will sit in Rome. I’m not saying that this is the case at present, we will know for sure later. If your line is: because BaF, as you said, he systematically destroys the Catholic Church, then BaF is not the pope. I can argue that conclusion is true although connection between ‘if’ and ‘then’ is not very clear (to me).
      I oppose to your others tatement:
      “GOD USED PLAN B. That Plan was to have Benedict
      maintain the Papacy so that Satan, through Francis and his legitimate successors, could not destroy, in an official way, the Catholic Church”
      Firstly, God does not need any ‘plan B’. I understand it was simple rhetoric figure, but it implies that God failed on plan A and need plan B – this is not true of course. Secondly, fact that B16 is the pope does not automatically mean that everything he does is perfect.
      It seems to me, from reading your post, that you are looking for confirmation of the Indefectibility of the Church in B16 behaviour. No need to. Indefectibility is assured regardless of what B16 does or what he fails to do.
      Few more notes regarding your search for true pope. Correct me if I’m wrong but your line of thinking is this: BaF is not true pope because his actions harms the Church, if so then you start looking for somebody else who might fit to popes positing and you point out to B16 as ‘most likely candidate’. Then you assume that B16 is the pope and you apply some sort of ideal view of him.
      I do not agree with this. Keep in mind that BaF is consequence of B16’s action. I’m not judging that it was good or bad action but looking at results it is hard to see much goodness in it.
      Also it is not clear from your writing if you accept ‘expanded ministry’ mentioned by ‘Dom Ganswein’ or not. If you do, please say so clearly.
      Last comment on this:
      “It’s about time those in authority act like true shepherds’
      Cant agree more. In my opinion time for action is badly overdue. This was also position of Spencer when he called: “Pope Benedict, man up please!”. Little hope though…
      Lastly, I’d like to repeat my request from top of the post: rdbelland, please, try to put subject of your post in first sentence of your writing and stick to it. It is hard to answer/discuss so many topics you touches in form of blog comments.

      1. Dear MC, I can certainly understand you dilemma, but, unless I am wrong, English may not be your first language, which would make it difficult to grasp everything I tend to cram into what I write. Please do be patient with me. When I personally have trouble understanding someone else’s writing, I just read it over several times and eventually the meaning becomes clear. I don’t know if you have ever read St. Thomas Aquinas, but he compresses so much into a little paragraph even in his Summa Theologica, which was the Cathechism for laymen in his time. But, even those who study St. Thomas are not always able to grasp precisely what he is saying.
        As for my “position,” yes, I do believe Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, and that Benedict is the true Pope. However, I do not say and could not say that he is “a saint and does everything perfectly.” What I did say is that I believe he will go straight to heaven because he will be the Holy Father in the Vision given to the three children at Fatima who is murdered by arrows and bullets, Sr. Lucia’s description of that Vision goes thus:
        “Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the HOLY FATHER passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he [the Holy Father] was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”
        Since the Holy Father was murdered and because Sr. Lucy speaks of the two angels “gathering up the blood of the Martyrs,” one can only conclude that the Holy Father was a martyr. Now, a true Martyr goes directly to heaven because by the shedding of his own blood for Christ, he shares in the death of Christ a very intimate way and thus is washed in the very Blood of Christ, thus having any and all sins forgiven. The martyr then goes straight to heaven.
        My question, “So why would Our Lord allow such a situation,” was only a sort of rhetorical question which should have been obvious. Suffice it to say that by His Dispositive Will, that is, by his actually willing something to happen, Christ brings about what is good; by his Permissive Will God only allows something to happen which will only bring about some something good. In other words, whatever God “actively” wills or only allows, is meant to result in something good. God never positively wills in any way something evil, though he will allow evil to bring about something good. We, however, may not always know that that good is until the Final Judgment. Sometimes it may be apparent what God intended. It is my opinion that because John XXIII did not obey Our Lady’s request to reveal the Third Secret, nor consecrate Russia in union with all the Bishops of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the filth that had been introduced into the Church by the Communists and Freemasons in the 1930′ and 1940’s would only increase over the rest of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. But how would all that filth be eliminated when it was all so well hidden and in control. Well, I don’t know how anyone can argue against the FACT that by the Renunciation of Benedict the filth was exposed. As long as the enemy can remain hidden, it is most difficult to fight it. However, once out in the open, the faithful can fight against that enemy.
        As for your comment that “[i]t seems to me, from reading your post, that you are looking for confirmation of the Indefectibility of the Church in B16 behaviour. No need to. Indefectibility is assured regardless of what B16 does or what he fails to do,” I was certainly not questioning the Indefectibility of the Church, which as you say must be taken for granted. However, my purpose was to contrast the behavior of Pope Paul VI with that of Bergoglio to show THAT God’s protection of the Church was evident by Paul VI upholding the constant teaching of the Church on contraception despite the whole world being against him. Whereas because Bergoglio, in apparently freely and “officially” promulgating laws and teaching which were against the Deposit of Faith could NOT be the true Pope, otherwise he would not have been able to do those things. And this is what you correctly assert in the following paragraph.
        But having asserted correctly that I consider Benedict to be Pope, you go on to put words in my pen. It is quite evident today that there are very few saints on earth today, and I have never tried to make Benedict out to be a saint. However, I do believe that because of his sufferings, because of his knowledge of the Third Secret of Fatima, because of his prayers and penance as an inactive Pope, he has advanced much further and faster than most would be willing to admit, given the attitude of Alcoholics Anonymous that drunkenness is an incurable disease and that hence also other sins are incurable, a most dreadfully erroneous assumption. It is actually implicitly the refusal to believe that God’s Grace can transform any individual willing to cooperate with God’s Grace. One certainly cannot deny that Benedict was doing literally the impossible during his active reign by writing the wrongs of his predecessors to the applause of most traditionalists. There was definitely a movement, to the extent he was able, to bring the Church to sanity.
        Regarding your comment that “[a]lso it is not clear from your writing if you accept ‘expanded ministry’ mentioned by ‘Dom Ganswein’ or not. If you do, please say so clearly,” I will say, since I’ve gone on longer than I intended, only that what Dom Ganawein describes as an expanded ministry is nothing more than Benedict and his faithful “cooperator in truth” (Ganswein) in their newly formed religious “expanded ministry” with, and pay attention, an active MEMBER (Ganswein) and a contemplative MEMBER—not an active POPE and a contemplative POPE–enlarged, as it were, the “exercise” of the Power of Orders, whereby offering Holy Mass, doing penance and offering their daily sacrifices to Almighty God, in the only way the situation in the Church allowed to be available to Benedict. This is NOT a change in the constitution in the Church by any means. And by reason of the legal Virtue of Equity (Epikeia, if you will), which is a virtue that corrects a law that becomes unjust in unprecedented times which the Law could not have foreseen.
        MC, I will try to be more accommodating to your suggestion at the beginning of your comment, but since I was trying to cover various issues in my commentary, it would have been cumbersome, to say the least, and would have added to an already too long comment. Please forgive me. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.

      2. Father,
        you are right about English being my second language. I see myself errors in my writing -I bet not all of them. Also some thought structures I use are not formed in English, what don’t make easier for readers. Please, everyone having problems, forgive me. Other matter is that long, elaborated, well thought through posts are not suited for form we are using; some errors are, imo, acceptable.
        Re B16 being a saint.
        “ The martyr then goes straight to heaven”
        Only saints go to heaven. And ‘yes’, saints do not have to do everything perfectly.
        I’m not sure what do you base your opinion about B16 on. Is this something similar to ‘state of emergency’, I read about a while ago? (If you are not familiar I will look up for link.) I have hard time to envision situation in which what B16 did is the best course of action. You may be right though – but unless you can convince me (not that important) I will hold different opinion. You said: “Well, I don’t know how anyone can argue against the FACT that by the Renunciation of Benedict the filth was exposed. As long as the enemy can remain hidden, it is most difficult to fight it. However, once out in the open, the faithful can fight against that enemy’.
        I want argue with your statement, just for me, above is an example of Permissive Will, where God brings good from evil – so to speak. My big question here is: _How_faithful can actively fight against exposed enemy?
        “ my purpose was to contrast the behavior of Pope Paul VI with that of Bergoglio to show THAT God’s protection of the Church was evident by Paul VI upholding the constant teaching of the Church on contraception despite the whole world being against him. Whereas because Bergoglio, in apparently freely and “officially” promulgating laws and teaching which were against the Deposit of Faith could NOT be the true Pope”
        From what I heard P6 did introduced changes in teaching but changes were stopped by Card Ottaviani right before publication (agree that this constitutes Protection). True or not, we are touching other subject that is of my highest interest: status introduction of NO Mass, where God’s Protection, the way you suggest, doesn’t deem to be so evident. Please, do not respond to this now. Although I’m very interested in your opinion – let’s wait for this topic to be brought up by Mark.
        Now, bad teaching promulgated by BaF, even if he is the Pope, does not, imo, contradicts truth about God’s Protection of the Church. BaF actions are not capable of change of Church’s teaching (but are capable of bringing souls to suffering). If BaF attempts to establish new dogma, contradictory to Church then your stance is correct. I do not think/know that Protection covers also not dogmatic teachings. By looking at history, I think not.
        The main thing I can not agree about (maybe only because I can’t understand ) is this:
        “expanded ministry is nothing more than Benedict and his faithful ‘cooperator in truth’ (Ganswein) in their newly formed religious ‘expanded ministry’
        with (…) an active MEMBER (Ganswein) and a contemplative MEMBER (..) enlarged, as it were, the ‘exercise’ of the Power of Orders (…)
        in the only way the situation in the Church allowed to be available to Benedict“
        I have no idea why do you think that ‘expanded ministry’ was the only available way and why ‘membership’ is necessary. Abp Ganswein is Pope’s subject, why he does need to be a member of Pope’s ministry and not just be delegated to do so…. and so on. Questions, questions, questions. As you see I can’t grasp your idea, or rather necessity for it, nor why this is only available proceed. I appreciate if you take time, whenever you find some, to write main points of thought process.
        “One certainly cannot deny that Benedict was doing literally the impossible during his active reign by writing the wrongs of his predecessors to the applause of most traditionalists.”
        I certainly cannot deny that, but cannot confirm either. I don’t either see why I have to admire fact that Pope did something to applause anybody beside God.
        I heard and read about B16’s hardship before resignation. I do not deny his attempts ‘to bring the Church to sanity’. I just don’t see the results and definitely don’t see the follow-up. What I see is cooperation with BaF in efforts to dissolve papacy in accordance with quotes presented also on this blog.
        “ God bless and Our Lady protect you always.”

      3. I have hard time [envisioning] a situation in which what B16 did is the best course of action.
        Possibility: B XVI sees the extent of corruption and malfeasance present in the Church, and the powers closing in on it. Feels rather powerless to really change it, being likely outnumbered and out-powered. Rather than offense, perhaps the best move he sees is a defense of sorts – as the wolves close in, let them think they have had their day by “winning”, but build in a self-destruct button. That self-destruct button is the questionable validity of his resignation – he has to make it seem plausible enough for the wolves to buy it, but questionable enough that down the road it can be found invalid, and all of the current Fauxtificate’s actions found void.

      4. c matt
        Discussing actions of B16 we must remember that we can not judge the Pope, in either direction. We can have opinions about his actions though.
        you said:
        “Possibility: B XVI sees the extent of corruption and malfeasance present in the Church, and the powers closing in on it. Feels rather powerless to really change it, being likely outnumbered and out-powered. Rather than offense, perhaps the best move he sees is a defense of sorts – as the wolves close in, let them think they have had their day by “winning”, but build in a self-destruct button.'”
        If so this is very strange. His courage mus be of a different type. Did he forgot Who is with him?
        So, in this scenario, he relies mostly on his abilities to outsmart enemies. What he did, again – in this scenario, he caved in to enemy forces passing to them full control. Even if he left ‘self-destruct button’ for future fighters to use, by doing so he exposed multiple of souls to enormous danger. Is it worth? I don’t think so. Could it possibly seem right from B16 perspective? I have hard time to envision that within boundaries of Catholic faith.
        As usual, I can be wrong, but I don’t see favourable scenario for B16. I think @frdbelland has quite opposite opinion, maybe he’s willing to present it here.

  4. Spinsters, all the Virgin Saints of the Catholic Church could fall into that category since they were not married ,as could nuns. What kind of man mocks chastity and piety ?

  5. Ah, yes, …“ecumenism of prayer,” … as in the addition, …”For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.”… I remember that change very well many years ago. We could blindfold this bergoglio, take him to a N.O. catholic church and separately to a protestant church, and he would find not too many differences in the exteriors and interiors.
    Pope Benedict, man up please!
    Have a pleasant day sir.

    1. Dear Spencer, could you explain what you mean when you say: “Pope Benedict, man up please!”? One must be careful how he judges another person, or make a statement which contains an implicit judgment of that person. It is one of the most common sins of mankind, beginning way back in the Garden of Eden when Adam blamed his eating of the apple on Eve, is to impute our own sins onto another. Putting it another way, man tends to place that of which he is guilty onto someone else. The long and short of this comment is that unless we have certain and documented evidence concerning the sins or weaknesses of another, one risks committing the sin of detraction or calumny, and actually acts in so doing as if he is God.
      And when it comes to Benedict, I can say with certitude say that you do not know all the facts, all the circumstances, have all the information concerning Benedict’s situation. And hence I wish to caution against making such off the cuff statements against Benedict, or against anyone else for that matter, for every idle word will be taken into account at your judgment: “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment” (Mt. 12: 36).
      If you want my own opinion on Benedict, I believe he will go straight to heaven upon his death, for I believe he is the “Holy Father” who goes up the mountain to a wooden cross and there is martyred by arrows and bullets (from the vision portion of the Third Secret).

      1. No disrespect to Pope Benedict, but seeing two distinct persons as popes, one of chaos and one seemingly content is hard to take. I am not sure as to why Pope Benedict did what he did when he retired, but by doing what he did and ensured the chaos that has now befallen the Church of Jesus is heart breaking to see. Thus I said … “Pope Benedict, man up please!”… If I as a man I make a serious mistake, I need to buck up and rectify the situation and try to make a wrong a right. Do you think Father that we the people in the pews enjoy the ride we are on right now? And yes as a human being, and not so smart at times, will from time to time make errant comments and cause displeasure to other people on our journey. Emotions are running hot now, and not by our choice. But I do thank the gentleman running this blog, smart and contentious, and made me write something, anything that resembled doing something out of exasperation.
        Have a pleasant evening Father.

        1. I think Father’s position is that Benedict knew what he was doing, and still knows what he’s doing, as part of a deliberate strategy to save the papacy. Benedict knows the Third Secret, we don’t, and I agree that it’s all but certain the the Third Secret plays a prominent role in this.

  6. You may be right about his position but let him confirm that. I’m of similar opinion that B16 fake resignation was premeditated, just for different reasons. He acted with goal to dissolve papacy. This is simple explanation. This thesis also requires cooperation of ‘German theologians’ and of BaF – what easily can be observed.
    If you and frdbelland are right this implies that B16 deliberately, with full understanding put many souls in danger of eternal condemnation. With my version subjectively he (guess) believes that dissolvency of papacy is ok.

    1. Dear MC, it seems that you write with a different style in your comment on, I believe it was Spencer’s post above, than when you commented on my post–there was an utterly unmistakable difference. Was that intentional; i surely hope it wasn’t, for it would smack of great disrespect for a Priest. And if it was intentional, may I ask why it was? God bless, Father Belland

      1. I repost this one. Some comments are not going through.
        Different style is probable. This is result of being tight on time. For form of communication we are using speed is at least as important as style, imo.
        I don’t know why you read disrespect in my words and I’m not sure toward which Priest it’s supposed to be aimed at, you or B16? I can only assure you that disrespect was not at all in my mind and any impression of that is simple result of being short on time.
        I still don’t see where you see disrespect. Explanation of for this blindness lays, most likely in, my post somewhere above.

      2. I saw no disrespect. These comments here are all good. The blog is good. The comments are good. I see good manners here. More than usual, actually.
        “Disrespect for a Priest” kind of implies we know you as a Priest, which, at least as far as I’m concerned, don’t.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.