“It’s a mistake for the Church to have clear answers for everything”

“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.” Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei #41, 1 November 1885

Are you obedient to the Roman Pontiff Francis (sic)? Because he’s 100% totally the pope, right? Do you “hold his opinion with firm grasp of mind?” Will you “openly profess” this:

Pope Francis: Church Must Learn to Abandon Old ‘Traditions’

It is a mistake for the Church to try to hold onto old traditions or to have clear answers for everything, Pope Francis said.

Jesus intentionally omitted telling his disciples many things so that the Church would learn to renounce the desire for clarity and order, the pope told participants in the 21st general assembly of Caritas Internationalis… By not always giving “clear rules” that would quickly resolve issues, Jesus was protecting the Church from the temptation of “efficientism,” Francis said, which is the desire for the Church to have everything under control, avoiding surprises, with its agenda always in order. This is not the way the Lord acts, he continued…
Jesus does not want the Church to be a perfect model (STRAIGHT UP DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF INDEFECTIBILITY. More precisely, this is the diabolical INVERSION of the doctrine: Not only is the Church NOT indefectible, its actually THE WILL OF GOD that she be imperfect), satisfied with its own organization and able to defend its good name,” he said… Living like Jesus demands the “courage of renunciation,” the pontiff said, a willingness to abandon traditions that are dear to us… In the end, they did not need a bunch of doctrines and traditions. but the simple announcement that “God is love,” Francis said, and in the face of this great truth, “even convictions and human traditions can and must be abandoned, since they are more of an obstacle than a help.”
Are you obedient to this?
Read the rest at the link. There is plenty more to the article.
And now a word from Our Savior:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”  Matt. 7:13-20

40 thoughts on ““It’s a mistake for the Church to have clear answers for everything””

  1. @Mark Docherty: Nah, that’s not Catholic; so he’s not Peter. Moving on, since Bergoglio isn’t the pope and just in case Benedict may have had recourse to it for making his decision, could you post an article about the virtue of Equity/Epikeia that we might ruminate over it together? Thank you.

  2. I gave up trying to square the circle years ago. Bergoglio isn’t even Catholic let alone pope. I totally agree with you, Mark. You’re doing a fantastic job of explaining things. Keep it up. Thank you and many prayers for you.

  3. I have noticed a quietness from the usual apologists. I imagine they are marshalling their arguments that somehow the Holy Ghost and Christ endorse the legitimacy of a homosexualist heretic who protects sexual abusers and has twisted Christ’s (and therefore the Church’s) teachings on marriage, the death penalty, and the natural order (to name a few things).

  4. Truly, thanks for all you do Mark. I am so much more at peace now praying for Pope Benedict….I couldn’t have made the leap if not for you (and Ann) explaining things so clearly. Looking forward to you and Ann hashing it out soon.

  5. One worry I have about using this quote is that, perhaps depending on how it’s used, it leaves one wide open to a charge of begging the question:
    A: Whatever the popes teach must be held firmly and openly professed.
    B: Why?
    C: Because Pope Leo XIII said so.
    Notice that B can’t accept C’s premise (“Because Pope Leo XII …”) unless B already assumes the truth of A’s conclusion (“Whatever the popes …”). Still, it’s a great quote. We just have to be careful with how we use it.

  6. The quote above, is from Pope Leo XII’s Encyclical Immortale Dei, “On The Christian Constitution Of States”. The premise of this Encyclical is that *all* just government in the world *must* be based on Christian principle *and no other*, as defined by the Catholic Church, under the direct authority of Almighty God … *to whom it’s members must give an account*.
    This Encyclical, like every Encyclical from every prior age with which it is in full accord, sources all legitimate power and authority in God, and the Catholic Faith as the only true Faith and legitimate government on earth: solid, true, unchanging – contra the current illegitimate regime who propose the undoing of this and all other past works of Faith and which stands in shame, naked and alone with no other Divine and Catholic support for its strange innovations and destructive ideology.
    “Jesus does not want the Church to be a perfect model”? Then take this entire Encyclical and throw it in the trash, because Pope Leo XII drew the opposite conclusion from Bergoglio. *Or* keep it, and throw Bergoglio’s work in the trash. They are mutually exclusive.
    A few more relevant quotes from Immortale Dei:
    7. Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking …. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.
    8. For the only-begotten Son of God established on earth a society which is called the Church, and to it He handed over the exalted and divine office which He had received from His Father, to be continued through the ages to come. “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.”[5] “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”[6] Consequently, as Jesus Christ came into the world that men “might have life and have it more abundantly,”[7] so also has the Church for its aim and end the eternal salvation of souls, and hence it is so constituted as to open wide its arms to all mankind, unhampered by any limit of either time or place. “Preach ye the Gospel to every creature.”[8]
    – And –
    47. Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God…
    Pure, grass fed Catholic Truth.

    1. Aqua, I’m not kin to long quotes in brief discussions, but reading Leo XII’s words caused me such pleasure that I must thank you for bringing them. Such words are great antidote to poisons of this word. L13 held the rudder steady.

      1. MC: I apologize for the typo – Immortale Dei was written by Pope Leo XIII (not XII).
        After some little research, I see this Encyclical as being connected to
        This is the Pope who saw the vision of the Devil, given permission by Our Lord to make a terrible attempt on His Church, just as He gave the Devil permission to test Job Millenias before. “75-100 years” was what the Devil claimed he needed and the people given over to diabolical service to do it.
        – This vision was Oct 13, 1884. He immediately composed the St. Michael Prayer.
        – The Fatima miracle of the Sun, following the warnings of Our Lady, was Oct 13, 1917 (33 years to the day).
        – A paragraph is removed from the St. Michael prayer … a very interesting paragraph (*see below)
        – The first working session of Vatican II was on Oct 13, 1962 (78 years to the day).
        – One of the first official acts of this Council was to delete the Leonine prayer to St. Michael the Archangel (1964).
        And this Encyclical, Immortale Dei, (the fundamental basis of all just government is the pure, holy Catholic Church), was completed one year after the prophetic vision of Church trial. The World must conform itself to Her. What Bergoglio (person given over to diabolical service) proposes is the Church conformed to the World.
        This is the battle between Christ and the Devil, seen by Pope Leo XIII in a vision, writ large of the battle we read when Christ met His adversary in the Wilderness; now played out in real time in our day.
        * – St. Michael paragraph removed in 1934 (50 years later) [“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered”.]

      2. I made same mistake in roman numeration, independently from you 🙂
        I’m familiar with some documents of Leo XIII, definitely with St Michael’s prayer, but still reading your quote was a bright point in another wave of bad news.

      3. Mark Docherty: “Here is more background and the complete setting of the Prayer to St. Michael, the long version.”
        My understanding is that the long form of this prayer should never be prayed by the laity since it assumes priestly authority, which laymen don’t have, and because, when this authority is assumed by a prayer but not enjoyed by the one praying, it leaves one spiritually endangered.

    2. @Aqua: Amen. Thanks for presenting this ‘blast from the past’. I am ruminating in this pasture of truth from the lips of a Good Shepherd. Lol

      1. Another “blast from the past”; the St. Michael prayer as Pope Leo XIII actually received it from God (perhaps St. Michael?). I think I’m going to work on memorizing this prayer.
        *Prayer to St. Michael*
        “O Glorious Prince of the heavenly host, St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle and in the terrible warfare that we are waging against the principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the evil spirits. Come to the aid of man, whom Almighty God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of Satan.
        Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven. That cruel, ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.
        [These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered]. [Removed(!) 1934]
        “Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly find mercy in the sight of the Lord; and vanquishing the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.
        V. Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.
        R. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.
        V. Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
        R. As we have hoped in Thee.
        V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
        R. And let my cry come unto Thee.
        Let us pray.
        O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as supplicants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin Immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious St. Michael the Archangel, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all the other unclean spirits who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen.”

        1. @Aqua: Beautiful! a
          And a great idea to memorize it. The version I have from Deliverance Prayers for use by the Laity uses ‘gall and wormwood’ rather than ‘gall and bitterness’. Being a Naturopath, I like the reference to wormwood which is a bitter herb and acts as both a vermifuge and vermicide. Satan, not being able to create on his own, is a parasite extraordinaire. He and his will be purged from Christ’s Bride. I reject him and all his empty promises.

      2. @Aqua, Islam_Is Islam: Are either of you familiar with the opinion that only the short form of the Prayer to St. Michael should be prayed by the laity? That is my own understanding. As for the form in Fr. Ripperger’s text, which I haven’t consulted myself, is it a modified form of the long version?

        1. @CamRoyer: I hadn’t heard that we weren’t to pray the long form, but I know there are definitely certain prayers that are reserved to the ministers of exorcism exclusively. The short form in Fr. R’s text is a modification of the one that Aqua presented.

        2. @CamRoyer: Good catch on the long form. I am grateful to you for the heads up. I do not want to play with fire by taking onto myself authority that I do not and cannot have.

  7. All Bergoglio does is leading illogical schism-producing documents of the Vatican II to their logical conclusion – total rupture and doctrinal chaos of religion of man. His canonization en masse of conciliar and post-conciliar popes (except one – emeritus and living, and one short living) including those of new mess order and of Quran kissing idolatry favouring zeitgeists proves that. The truth is that Paul did not care of doctrine – he imposed practical revolution on all fronts. It seems that John Paul II believed in the spirit of the Council and tried to give VII new doctrinal level. Ratzinger who in the CDW did unbelievable things (see e.g. Rosmini case) and who was the most learned theologian of them, though revolted one, started to see flaws of VII but as Benedict XVI and the revolutionary tried in vain to save his glory of the past – Vatican II with “hermeneutic of continuity” (cf. Summorum Pontificum for example and amendments made, according to the zeitgeist, to the old Missal) or rather – of overstraining. He miserably failed (because there was no other option with bishops educated on postconciliar ideology and fundamental fallacy in his premises) and put us into even deeper crisis with his retirement. Bergoglio follows the path of Assisi zeitgeist and the man-centered church (cf. Gaudium et spes 12) adding some minor supplementary concepts (as the ecological conversion). In the meantime the long-lasting decline of the Faith amidst the clergy unevitably produced the fall of morals.
    Yes, most probably Bergoglio is not Catholic, but were Catholic all those “sainted” promoted by him for public veneration?

    1. @VRS: Please stop. It seems to me that this kind of ‘revelation’ of the reality of past actions of past VALID popes does nothing but attempt to pull the rug of moral certitude out from under BiPpers; thus compromising our ability to FIGHT the weaponized ambiguity of V-II and the overt and covert non-Catholic antics justified by those same ambiguities. In the midst of our present unprecedented crisis, how are you helping the Soldiers of Christ to stand firm and hold to the traditions with your valid observations? Are you a BiPper or are you not?
      I hope that you would consider this speculation: perhaps one of the reasons that our Holy Father publicly renounced the powers of governing and teaching was so that he could not be used to bind on Earth that (a canonization) which cannot be and is not bound in Heaven.

      1. ad. 1 I am not a beeper, I’m Catholic. Yes, “the reality of past actions” of past popes may “pull the rug of moral certitude” from under any Catholic, but it is not my fault and, all the more the reality is not to blame.
        ad. 2. I wouldn’t like to speculate on somebody’s hidden reasoning when everything around burns because of visible fruits. The resignation or non-resignation, if you wish, wrought new havoc, adding new planes of schism to the old one (i.e. SV 1958). Thus, in my humble opinion, one moral certitude we can have nowadays is the certitude of the reality of schism – sedevacantists 58′, sedevacantists 13′, Bergoglians, Ratzingerians, etc. – more dangerous than any past schism because nobody in the hierarchy has the courage to admit its existence.
        I know that most probably Bergoglio is not Catholic. Then we have a simple test of three elements of Catholic unity: the same Faith, Sacraments, Pope. Does it mean that Benedict is the pope? (the “error” theory is quite tempting but when we admit that he was in error submitting his resignation in 2013, we treat the learned theologian as a sort of imbecile who does not know what the simple word “resignation” means; then, did not he confirm the will to resign by all those years of inactivity?) Well… I am not empowered / entitled to solve the greatest crisis in the Church history. I am a layman, neither Cardinal nor the bishop and not even the resident of Rome. To choose new better pope or solemnly issue all necessary censures and declarations.
        I can only:
        – pray for coming of the the Catholic pope (or coming of Christ if these are really end times), saintly priests and Divine intervention,
        – keep and transmit the Catholic Truth, and
        – support priests trying to keep the Catholic Truth and proclaim it.
        That’s all. And quite a lot for Soldiers of Christ.
        May God be with you.

        1. @VRS: Thank you for making your position clear. Perhaps you would be even clearer. Does the Barque of Peter on which you sail have a living, visible pope? By living I mean one who’s heart still physically beats here on earth? To be clear, do you consider yourself a sedevacantist?
          Neither do I have the authority to “solve the greatest crisis in the Church history”. BUT I do have a duty by the grace of Confirmation to be a soldier of Christ most especially when those with authority sit idly by and watch Rome burn.
          I believe your prayers could be more powerful since “in praying for the coming of the Catholic pope” you seem to make Christ into a liar and a fraud.
          Would it be correct to say that your purpose in rehashing the non-Catholic antics that recent popes have justified by V-II is to lead others to desert Pope Benedict with you?
          Thank you for your honesty.

          1. I think you missed my point.
            1) The Barque of Peter on which I sail has above, in heaven, St. Vincent Ferrer as well as St. Catherine of Siena. It has also in its history Baltasare Cosa (John XXIII) that appeared – up to the 19th century – in publications of the Apostolic See as the valid pope.
            2) Rome had burnt several times in history of the Church and had been desecrated even more frequently. Remember sacco di Roma in 1527? And then the Tridentine reneval came. I am not responsible for those monsignors in Rome who want or provoke a repetition of sad historical experiences.
            3) I do not care what seems to you or – saying in another way – what phenomenon appears to you because of my writing. In my humble opinion, holding that a pope who kisses Quran is Catholic may also seem to somebody as “making Christ into a liar and a fraud”.
            4) Would it be to correct to assume that you are trying to ask me whether I “ceased to beat my wife”? No, I do not answer to such kind of “polite questions”.
            God bless you.

          2. @VSR: Thank you for the way that you have organized your reply! I really appreciate your example in this matter.
            !.) When you reply thusly regarding my question, “upon which Barque of Peter you choose to sail”, do you mean to say that you reject BXVI as a valid pope? Yes or no?
            2.) History is bound to repeat itself. Okay. I still have the choice to choose life and blessing as I ought and as commanded. Perhaps you would agree with these thoughts of mine.
            3.) By JPII’s scandalous kissing of the Koran, did he change Church doctrine? No, of course not. As truly scandalous as that and other of his actions and inactions were, Christ did not break His promises to His Bride or us by allowing JPII to validly sit in the Chair of Peter. You have no idea what my thoughts are regarding the papacy, documents, etc…of JPII’s reign as I have no idea of yours except that you would answer this question: do you reject JPII as a valid pope? Yes or no?
            4.) No, I am not asking you whether you “ceased to beat [your] wife”. How you have made that assumption is … I don’t know what. The straight up simple question I have asked you is: do you take yourself to be a sedevacantist? Yes or no?
            Perhaps you would agree that this wrestling we do is with Satan and his minions. I do not intend to wrestle with you over the decision that you have made whatever it is. My intention is to wrestle with Pope Benedict’s Declaratio and by doing so arrive at proactive works for the Church Militant to employ in this ongoing time of great apostasy. I hope you will join me in the eternally worthwhile adventure of this endeavor.
            God bless you and yours.

          3. You want me to declare for and join the standard of Benedict XVI who, unfortunately, does not claim to be the Pope. Therefore, if there is no claim – what do I have to reject?You want me to be a Benevacantist, sedevacantist or Peronist – I am none of them. I am Catholic and I shall wait for the judgement of the Church even if I have to wait all my this life and even a part of the eternal one. In the meantime you will not rally me to any standard other than the standard of the Catholic Truth.
            As to JPII I did not mean to consider his kiss as the change of the Church doctrine (though you can find some interesting case studies in his documents, e.g. in Ut unum sint) but rather a sign of the incense or, in other words – apostasy, or – condsidering the principle of good faith interpretation – lunacy.
            Referring to sedevacantism, I don’t think it’s heresy but, if they err – the justified error pertaining to the pope identity and yes, I am considering it as a possible true explanation of the ontological reality of the Church, but – again – I am not the one to finally decide on it. I agree completely that we are wrestling with Satan and his minions therefore my point is – do not scorn any Catholic who wants to keep the Faith, wants to live a sacramental life, and wants to serve the Catholic pope, but, in these times of great tribulations, does not know who the Pope is or is in error relating to the identity of the pope, or – does not want to be rallied to the standard not risen by the valid claimant but only by some good-willed but partisan group.

          4. @VRS: No, I wanted you to make clear your position on standing for what I see is the Truth of the matter perhaps even as you say the “standard of the Catholic Truth”. You have done this in far more words than I expected. A simple yes or no would have sufficed for me. However, I see that you are conflicted as many FOR GOOD REASON are. Thank you for your honesty and unexpected thoroughness. BTW, by inviting you and others to join in this wrestling match I did not intend to “scorn any Catholic who wants to keep the faith”. In fact it is for this very reason that my invitation in good will (as you recognize and as you have made clear is unacceptable) still holds.
            Sincerely I pray for you as you “run your race” as I hope you will pray for me.

  8. Of course Bergoglio’s not Catholic. Any Catholic with even a modicum of orthodoxy should have detected this by the enthusiastic support he received from some of the worst heretical prelates within minutes of his election.
    So where does that leave us?
    Answer: It leaves us ONLY with the ongoing riddle that is Benedict. And that riddle MUST be solved.
    Now everybody keeps falling back on
    “Well, we can’t read Benedict’s mind – so we should just hunker down and pray for him”
    But I’m sorry folks – that’s just escapism. And Our Lord told us that we could actively read these End Times by the metaphorical changing of the seasons. By the fruits of the False Teachers. And He wouldn’t have said that unless He knew that we should be COMPELLED to discern the Truth by the spiritual gifts He gave us: intellect and grace. Faith and Reason.
    So to that compulsory end – we NEED to be concerned with the circumstances and motives that led to Ratzinger’s selection to the Papacy.
    More to the point:
    Does it really seem reasonable to everyone that the same scheming, blackmailing and determined cabal of clerics (who obviously dominated the hierarchy as well as the 2005 Conclave) supposedly stifled BXVI’s efforts to reform the corruption – AFTER THEY PERSONALLY SELECTED HIM TO BE POPE?
    For that to be true – one would have to believe that this Machiavellian crew of heretics simply voted for a fellow Cardinal whom they ALL KNEW quite well – without one iota of concern about vetting him over his true motives and intentions should they personally foist him to The Chair of Peter.
    Now tell me: Does that really sound logical?

    1. @Lazarus Gethsemane: We have historical precedent for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s, St. Thomas Becket’s, example of miraculously standing fast after being personally selected by his close friend King Henry in order to NOT do the bidding of Christ. He was murdered which martyr’s death did not have the same universal implications as Pope Benedict’s death will have.
      Do you not believe in the grace of conversion? Are you for BiP or are you against BiP?
      As I explained to MC in a recent reply, a house divided cannot stand. I know that my position seems to be held by a minority of BiPpers, but perhaps it is actually a silent majority. What i see as the false base premise of BiP-with-error actually weakens the foundation for whole-heartedly supporting BiP by taking a swipe at the foundation of moral certitude for those who sit on the BiP fence.
      That’s why I say, “in the end, what do Pope Benedict’s motivations matter? Either he is Peter or he is not.” You will likely disagree but as I see it this is not escapism; this is what Mark has earlier described as “Frosty”.

  9. Islam_Is Islam: how are you helping the Soldiers of Christ to stand firm and hold to the traditions with your valid observations?
    Simply by holding up to the Truth.
    I understand Your commitment Islam, I’m don’t want to change it. Your voice is important in discussion.
    Yet, does facts really pull the rug of moral certitude out from you? Is that why you want them to stop coming? Maybe facing the truth, that B16, being valid pope, can do wrong, does not mean withholding our prayers and our support for him in restoration of the Church? Not at all, we are obliged to follow him and support B16, the Pope – just not against Christ.

    1. @MC: Again, thank you for your concern. No, I am not unsettled. I have made clear by my words and actions my determination to join the ranks of those who will be excommunicated from the anti-Church–I’m not a member of that diabolic invention anyway. My commitment to our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, which is based on the grace of moral certitude, is not moved by VRS’, Lazarus’, and even what I see as your nay-saying type comments.
      MC, my concern is for those who now sit on the BiP-fence of “did he err or did he not err”. That by rehashing non-Catholic, V-II-justified antics it seems to me that the motivation of such nay-sayers is to divide the BiPpers by presenting evidence meant to unsettle under the guise of the good of “having all the facts”.
      This is how I see VRS’s and others’ presentation of facts (the reality of which I don’t disagree with, btw): it seems to me that it prejudices the BiPpers toward the “with error base premise”. You would agree that this not only dis-unifies and can be a source of in-fighting between BiPpers BUT it prejudices in a way that can lead individuals to fulfill the vision that Jacinta had of the Holy Father being lambasted by cruel jeers and calumnies. (BTW this is similar to what happened to Our Lord and Savior as He hung on the cross.)

      1. @Islam
        I think that you read much more from posts that is in the words itself. Not that it is bad, but it causes misunderstandings.
        Was there anything you can argue with in VRS’ post? You simply add meanings you wont agree with. I suppose you see in his post whole sede-ideology. Maybe you are right maybe not. Did he throw any calumnies you are taking about? He presented facts and added some opinions. No explicit conclusions. You can present different opinions, but don’t say that facts are unwanted because they are bad for ‘unity’. If unity is based on hiding anything or avoiding any topics it wont last. Truth before unity!
        Same way you misread my concerns (especially about you being excommunicated) as personal, where in reality they were laid out in more general terms. Concerns were about those sitting on the fence., not you personally. I said we have to reach out to them (as opposed to discuss things in inner circles) so they may have whole matter clearly presented.
        This is my understanding of supposed ‘conflict’ between us. I’m not your opponent unless you will attempt to ‘skip over’ facts inconvenient to your position.

        1. @MC: I think between you and me the only ‘conflict’ happens because of the language differences. I suspect that you mistake possible subtleties in my use of language as well as my cutting-to-the-chase directness for hostility and interpret it as seeing you and other commenters as opponents. This is not the case nor my motivation.
          You have correctly seen that my concerns are about those who sit on the BiP fence having understood the non-sede reality of BiP. For those who are committed sede’s and have already rejected Benedict as a valid pope in the first place, I think out of honesty they should announce their sede-belief as a preface to their comments. I make this suggestion NOT because their observations of past Vatican hijinks are not valid and part of historical reality but because having already rejected Benedict as a valid pope (except for their concerns for the Universal Church), they don’t really have a dog in this BiP fight. Do they?
          Not to beat a dead horse but for those who are not sedes, in the end since Benedict is Pope, what does it matter what his motivations are? As the living pope, his physical existence protects the promises of Christ to His Bride and to us.

      2. @Islam
        I wouldn’t mix sede and BiP in one tread – only chaos will come out.
        If you want talk sede, talk sede, if BiP – BiP. As both topics are ‘touchy’ there is need for clear thought expression, especially if talking to someone less familiar with problem.
        B16’s motives can not be known with certainty – this was said here many times.
        Understanding his motives can help to understand situation we are in but is not necessary of course.
        Some dangers in your position, expressed in the other post, as I see it, is that you put unconditional trust in B16 (probably perceived as your duty), which is of little difference from position of Novus Ordo with only exception that object is different. I’m just signalling what I read in your posts without intentions of diving in.
        God bless.

        1. @MC: You are correct that both sede and BiP are touchy subjects and that many are not familiar with either. As I see it I was not the one covertly trying to mix sede with BiP. I only called out some who seemed to be mixing the two asking them to be honest about their starting point for commenting on BiP in the first place. I thought I’d been clear about my position, but I see from your comment perhaps I have not been clear enough.
          In regards to my support of BiP, you read into my motivations something that is not there. To be very clear my trust and hope is in the Lord Who made Heaven and Earth. I trust Jesus’ promises to His Bride and us. I do not trust fallen man of which every one but Our Lady and Our Lord is one.
          I truly appreciate that you have asked me to clarify my position. Please continue to do so since I do not want you “reading between the lines” something that is absolutely not there.

  10. @ Camroyer:
    I posted this separately to make it easier to find, but is in reply to a comment you made, buried deep above about the St. Michael prayer possibly being restricted to Priests at Mass and not intended for Lay intercessory prayer.
    I think that is incorrect. I think this prayer is exceedingly important to the Church right now, and especially to individual Laity who are under direct attack as foreseen by Pope Leo XIII in his vision – by the Grace of God.
    Nowhere does Pope Leo XIII restrict this prayer, as you infer. He *does* promote its use by all Priests after Low Mass throughout the world. But he does *not* also say *only* by Priests at Holy Low Mass. It *is* used in the Exorcism Rite, which is *of course* restricted *only* to Priests. But it is only *part* of the Rite, which does not restrict the prayer itself in any way from common use.
    *MOST IMPORTANTLY*: The St. Michael prayer was published in the Roman Raccolta in 1902, one year before Pope Leo XIII’s death.
    Definition – “The Raccolta (literally, “collection” in Italian) is a book, published from 1807 to 1950, that listed Roman Catholic prayers and other acts of piety, such as novenas, for which specific indulgences were granted by Popes”.
    In other words: Pope Pius XIII himself intended this prayer for us all, by the act of publishing it in the Roman Raccolta.
    I duly note, in this history of the St. Michael prayer, that the Church has ground this prayer down, this immediate response prayer from Christ’s Vicar in response to a heavenly warning for his Church and given as a gift to His people in their defense to call on His Champion, St. Michael. Step by step, ground it down. And now we can’t even pray it at home?!
    I disagree. I think this prayer, in full and as composed by its original author, should be memorized and prayed widely by those of us aware of the attack and in desperate need of heavenly assistance. I think Satan fears it. I think he fears little else these days.

  11. “Nowhere does Pope Leo XIII restrict this prayer, as you infer.” – No inference, just an opinion I’ve heard that some priests (possibly exorcists) hold. I think I first heard the opinion on Fr. Z’s site. Any idea how the short form ever came about in the first place (or why)?

Leave a Reply

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