Tuesday, September 29, 2015

TO THOSE WHO PROMOTE CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN THE CHURCH A LA THE DAVINCI CODE, GO GET A CATHOLIC LIFE, HELP THE POOR, FEED THE HUNGRY, VISIT THE SICK AND IMPRISONED!

This is the best article to date on this subject! Kudos to Philip Lawlor of Catholicculture.org

A conspiracy to elect Pope Francis? Don't believe it.


 

Did a powerful group of cardinals conspire to unseat Pope Benedict XVI and elect Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio—Pope Francis—in his place? That sensational claim has been circulating in conservative Catholic internet sites. But the available facts don’t support the sensational headlines.

Edward Pentin, a respected Vatican journalist, broke the story to the English-speaking world with his report for the National Catholic Register. He reported—accurately—that a new biography of Belgium’s retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels has disclosed that the existence of a group of prelates who were committed to “progressive” causes, and unhappy with the influence exerted in the Vatican by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The members of the St. Gallen group reportedly included the late Cardinal Carlo Martini of Milan of Milan, the veteran Vatican insider Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, English Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and the German Cardinals Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper, along with Cardinal Danneels. At the launch of the book, Cardinal Danneels referred to this group—known as the St. Gallen group, after the location where they had met—as a “mafia club.”

Now it may not be edifying to learn that cardinals were plotting to influence Vatican policy, and knowledgeable readers, glancing down that list of names, might well worry about their influence. But it does not rise to the level of conspiracy if a group of prelates meet to discuss Church affairs.

However, the authors of the biography went further, telling a French newspaper that the St. Gallen group had been active in the conclave of 2005, resisting Cardinal Ratzinger and promoting Cardinal Bergoglio. If it were true—if the cardinals had actively lobbied during the conclave—their behavior would have been a scandal, a clear violation of canon law, an offense for which St. John Paul II prescribed the penalty of excommunication.

As soon as that story drew public attention, things became more complicated. The authors of the Danneels biography said that they had been misunderstood. The St. Gallen group had not been acting as a lobbying bloc at the 2005 conclave, they now said, and shortly after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the group stopped meeting.

But should we take this retraction/correction at face value? The authors were working closely with Cardinal Danneels (it was an authorized biography, and he was cooperating actively in the publicity campaign to launch the book), so it seems unlikely that they were entirely mistaken about the nature of the St. Gallen gatherings. And when the cardinal himself referred to a “mafia club,” although the phrase might have been used light-heartedly, it did prompt thoughts of a sinister, secret cabal. So it would not be unreasonable to suspect—as many conservative analysts did suspect—that the book’s authors had been all too honest, and when they realized the scandal they might have created, they were prepared to obfuscate in order to undo the damage.

On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to dismiss the claims of conspiracy:
  • Even if the authors of the Danneels biography were quoted accurately, they had an obvious incentive to exaggerate the power of the St. Gallen group, to create publicity for their book. A story about a secret cabal is more likely to sell briskly than the life story of a retired cardinal.
  • If the St. Gallen group did make an effort to control the conclave of 2005, they failed miserably. The conclave almost immediately turned to Cardinal Ratzinger: the man whose influence the group was allegedly fighting to curtail.
  • Cardinal Martini was widely seen as the leader of the liberal group that might have sought for an alternative to Cardinal Ratzinger. But Vatican insiders know that Cardinal Martini was not at all favorably disposed toward his fellow Jesuit, Cardinal Bergoglio, and would never have supported his election.
  • Since the St. Gallen group stopped meeting in 2006, it was not likely to be an important factor in the conclave of 2013, which elected Pope Francis. By that time Cardinal Martini was dead, and other members—Cardinals Silvestrini and Murphy-O’Connor—were too old to participate in the conclave.
  • In the days leading up to the 2013 conclave, virtually no one expected the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. If a group of cardinals had been working for years to generate enthusiasm about his candidacy, they must have been singularly inept .
A biography of Cardinal Danneels is, regrettably, likely to generate thoughts of scandal. The Belgian cardinal’s failure to report sexual abuse, and the police raid on his residence; his support for government recognition of same-sex unions; his advice to King Baudouin to sign a law allowing for legal abortion. In light of this checkered past, it is astonishing that Pope Francis chose to appoint Cardinal Danneels to participate in the October session of the Synod of Bishops. But to claim that Cardinal Danneels is a successful conspirator is to leap well beyond the evidence.

34 comments:

Clyde Catholic said...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? "Help the poor, feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc..." How about "repent and believe the Gospel?"

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes that too as Pope Francis emphasizes to the nth degree: go to confession which means REPENTANCE!

Anonymous said...

Well, while it may not be important to those Catholics who are practising the Faith, it is important to those people who may be influenced by a cabal of liberals who are now trying to change the Church's moral teaching and leading people astray. If this has truly occurred, as seems likely from what has been said - even in this article - this may have influenced the resignation of Pope Benedict and, therefore, has surely changed the direction the Church is now going.

Therefore, anyone interested in saving souls, would be interested in this. Of course, there are those Catholics not interested, who don't want to rock any boats, who don't want to speak out and who wish to remain silent on important issues rather than perhaps trouble their consciences. But it is interesting to note that St John Paul The Great deemed it important enough that he made the influence of synods an excommunicable offence.

But then in these days no one gets excommunicated, do they? In fact, influenced by this cabal of liberals, Kasper, Daneels, Martini and others, it is now being suggested that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics be permitted to receive Communion and likewise practising homosexuals receive communion. So I guess it comes down to the point of whether saving souls is more important than feeding the poor?

Jan

Anonymous said...

Certain among the laity will not be fooled again. The last time you clerics told the people to shut up and don't worry about the political machinations of the hierarchy, you stole our liturgy and diluted our doctrine.

With Vatican II, the hierarchy told the laity to take an active role. Well, here we are.

Anonymous said...

Political Action Committee's, Special interest groups, lobbyists, closed door meetings, voting blocks, and the like are nothing new. I don't think it even qualifies as a conspiracy theory. It's just politics as usual. It's not even unusual to think that people and groups have infiltrated the Church with the specific goal of advancing an agenda that goes against Church teaching. Sometimes when I read church commentary by the religious bloggers, they sound absolutely no different from my government's political propaganda.

Vox Cantoris said...

In a speech delivered at Villanova University on October 11, 2013, Cardinal Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, spoke of a "very influential man" lobbying him prior to the conclave to engineer the election of Jorge Bergoglio. "He could do it you know ... five years to make the Church over again...to put us back on target." (listen at 18:20). Make over the Church to what? Back on target for what?

There certainly was a lobby/conspiracy to elect Card. Bergoglio.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cardinal%20mccarrick%20seminarians

Anonymous said...

Yes, as Vox Cantoris says, a lobby group to elect Card Bergoglio and a cabal to get rid of the encumbent Pope and, voila, a church now headed down the path of the Episcopalian/Anglican church at best ... I agree with anonymous at 6.50 "With Vatican II, the hierarchy told the laity to take an active role. Well, here we are". Yes, it's okay to be active just provided you don't rock any liberal's boat!

Jan

DJR said...

I have no idea whether Father Stefano Gobbi, founder of the Marian Movement of Priests, was an authentic mystic, but I know for a fact that there are thousands of Catholics who believe that he was.

That number includes hundreds of priests and even some bishops.

I have read Father Gobbi's book. It purports to be locutions he received from the Mother of God Herself.

According to the book, there are numerous members of the hierarchy who have become Freemasons, and Father Gobbi's claim is that it was the Blessed Virgin who told him this.

As I stated, I have no idea whether Father Gobbi's claim that the Blessed Virgin spoke to him is true, but that is not my point here. My point is this: Hundreds of Catholic priests DO believe it; they are part of the movement he founded.

Those priests who believe that Father Gobbi was authentic also believe that there are Masons in the hierarchy.

And the overwhelming majority of those priests are not "Traditionalists," for lack of a better term. They are part of the run-of-the-mill modern Mass clergy.

Earlier this year, Bishop Lenga made a public statement that there are "false witnesses" who occupy hierarchical offices in the Church.

"Conspiracy theories" are not so non-mainstream as some may think. We now have priests and bishops making public statements affirming their belief that such conspiracies exist.

Whether those theories are the reality remains to be seen. We may not have long before we have our answer.

TJM said...

Sounds like Cardinal Daneels should lose his red hat and retire to a monastery. He's done a helluva job in Belgium - a one man wrecking ball.

Mark Thomas said...

The latest conspiracy theory in question is preposterous. I engaged in a discussion about this to no avail a few days ago on a "Traditional" blog. The commenters did not wish to accept the reality that the "anti-Pope Benedict XVI mafia" conspiracy theory was utter nonsense.

I produced at least three posts in which I quoted Pope Benedict XVI's resignation announcement. He insisted that he resigned as the result of the lack of mental and physical strength that he believed was necessary to serve as Pope. Pope Benedict XVI also emphasized that he had resigned freely.

The bizarre conspiracy theory could only have been true had Pope Benedict XVI lied in regard to his resignation. Nevertheless, many "Traditional" plowed forward during the past few days with their pathetic conspiracy theory.

Hatred of His Holiness Pope Francis is intense and disturbing among more than a few "Traditionalists." Many Traditionalists will not hesitate to embarrass themselves in their pursuit of even the most absurd conspiracy theories to attempt to discredit Pope Francis.

During the past few hours, the conspiracy theory in question, particular via a report on the Swiss bishops' Web site, has been discredited. Some "Traditionalist" blogs and Web sites are desperate to back away from the story at hand.

Their latest spin is that the conspiracy theory is false...but a "secret" group (the group's existence wasn't a secret) used to meet during Pope Saint John Paul II's Pontificate to search for ways to counter then-Cardinal Ratzinger's influence within the Church.

The "secret" meetings had ceased by 2006 A.D.

Bottom line: Each sentient adult Catholic knew several days ago that the conspiracy theory in question was total trash.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

The "Traditional" Catholic Movement needs a wake-up call...right now.

I have been aware of and supported the Traditional Catholic Movement (the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and the lifestyle that flows from attachment to the TLM) since the time that Father Gommar DePauw all but single-handily preserved the TLM within the Church.

I experienced very bleak times beginning decades ago in regard to those of us who were attached then to the TLM. I lived through the lies from Chanceries and priests who claimed that the TLM had been outlawed by the Church...consigned to history...and the only people who favored the TLM hated supposedly the Church and Pope (Blessed Pope Paul VI).

But in many ways, I believe that the bleakest time for Catholics who are attached to the TLM has existed from the second that Pope Francis' election was announced publicly.

There obviously are more than a few Pope-Francis-hating Traditionalists who are unaware (or don't care) as to the massive damage that they have inflicted the past couple of years upon the TLM Movement.

Fortunately, the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Francis, whom they despise to the hilt, has continued to treat his "Traditional" Catholic as the loving spiritual father that he is.

Pope Francis has even gone to great lengths to present the SSPX, the touchstone of the TLM Movement in the hearts and minds of countless Catholics, in tremendously positive fashion.

Pope Francis demolished recently the horrific "we-must-shun-the-SSPX" approach favored by numerous liberal and conservative Catholics who despise the SSPX. Pope Francis has destroyed the "SSPX is in schism" argument that was popular among liberal and conservative Catholics.

Nevertheless, a most disturbing anti-Catholic spirit has filled the hearts and minds of more than a few "Traditional" Catholics in regard to their disturbing obsession to attempt to defame Pope Francis constantly.

Last week, leading "Traditional" Catholic blogs shamed themselves with their dour, joyless coverage of Pope Francis' beautiful Apostolic Visit to the United States. For that matter, many conservative Catholics continued their assault on Pope Francis' defense and promotion of Catholic Social Teaching.

Anti-Pope Francis hysteria within the Church reached the point that popular priest/bloggers announced that they were on vacation and thus disinterested in Pope Francis' important Apostolic Visit to the United States.

They found time to beg for money and gifts as well as post photographs of the food and alcohol that they stuffed and poured into their guts. But they didn't have much time to spend on the Vicar of Christ.

But then, that's what vacations are for, right?

Therefore, it's not only "Traditionalists" who, in various ways, take jabs at His Holiness Pope Francis.

However, Traditionalists do not throw jabs alone at Pope Francis. They also throw bombs at Pope Francis. They label him "Satanic, Antichrist, False Prophet, destroyer of the Church"...

A frightening and vicious spirit has arrived to attack Pope Francis and circulates in particular among various "Traditionalists." Something is terribly, terribly wrong with more than a few "Traditional" Catholics. Something is terribly wrong with them. Terribly wrong.

They are unaware (or don't care) as to how much damage that they heap daily upon the Traditional Catholic Movement.

I favor the TLM...but said folks don't speak for me. Not even close. Not even close.

Pax

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

To follow up please on my previous post...

Leading rational Traditional Catholics and groups had better step up quickly to gain control of the TLM Movement.

I am not certain as to Father McDonald's policy to name names...but he has the right certainly to edit or delete the following:

It is bad news for the majority of decent Catholics attached to the TLM when the likes of Rorate Caeli, Mundabor, and Eponymous Flower, to name just a few "Traditionalist" blogs, are pretty much the face and voice, at least on the Internet, of Catholics attached to the TLM and Holy Tradition.

When we have a large TLM society such as the FSSP...when we have Bishop Rifan, who serves as the Apostolic Administrator of the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney...

...how is it possible that such around-the-clock vicious bashing and trashing, in my opinion, of His Holiness Pope Francis, blogs as Rorate Caeli, Mundabor, and Eponymous Flower are de facto representatives of the TLM Movement?

Okay...to their credit, Rorate Caeli has positioned itself as the go-to source for major news media outlets whenever reporters require a quote from "Traditional" Catholics.

But why, for example, has the FSSP, not positioned themselves in that role? Why hasn't Bishop Rifan taken the lead in being a key Traditional source for news media outlets?

I suggest kindly that Father John Berg, FSSP Superior General, undertake a major push to make the official FSSP Web site a major force, a la Rorate Caeli, for Traditional Catholic news and opinion.

Bishop Rifan should make a similar push in that regard.

The Church's major TLM societies had better make a move soon to establish powerful Internet presences. Otherwise, bizarre conspiracy-chasing, vicious anti-Pope Francis "Traditional" Catholic blogs will continue to serve as the seeming voice (and face) of the TLM Movement.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

I am sorry but Mark Thomas is just one confused man. As if the FSSP is going to get into blogging. They are into saving souls and not blogging and nor is Bishop Rifan. To be quite honest the very group that Mark Thomas supports - the SSPX - is THE major critic of Pope Francis, of Vatican II, of the FSSP and Summorum Pontificum EF Masses, and so I think that you, Mark, should suggest that the SSPX start taking down some of the critical material off their websites, especially the American SSPX.

And if you are offended by Traditional websites then it is best you stop reading them.

Jan

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas says: "They found time to beg for money and gifts as well as post photographs of the food and alcohol that they stuffed and poured into their guts. But they didn't have much time to spend on the Vicar of Christ." It seemss to me you have been imbibing too much of the scurrilous blog Fr D which has such low and disgusting critiques of Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Fr Z - to whom I suspect you have been referring - that you should be ashamed to even go on there.

Jan

Anonymous said...

Fr D's blog kindly gave Mark Thomas his own page to paste on:

http://wdtprdad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/space-for-mark-thomas-to-post.html

Never once did I see Mark Thomas complain about the filth displayed on Fr D's blog.

Jan

Anonymous said...

This was meant to be a follow on to DJR's comments but I posted it to the wrong page.

Bugnini the author of the new Mass was suspected of being a Mason. Michael Davies writes: "Rumours soon began to circulate that the Archbishop had been exiled to Iran because the Pope had been given evidence proving him to be a Freemason. This accusation was made public in April 1976 by Tito Casini, one of Italy's leading Catholic writers. The accusation was repeated in other journals, and gained credence as the months passed and the Vatican did not intervene to deny the allegations. (Of course, whether or not Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason, in a sense, is a side issue compared with the central issue - the nature and purpose of his liturgical innovations.)

As I wished to comment on the allegation in my book Pope John's Council, I made a very careful investigation of the facts, and I published them in that book and in far greater detail in Chapter XXIV of its sequel, Pope Paul's New Mass, where all the necessary documentation to substantiate this article is available. This prompted a somewhat violent attack upon me by the Archbishop in a letter published in the May issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, in which he claimed that I was a calumniator, and that I had colleagues who were "calumniators by profession".

I found this attack rather surprising as I alleged no more in Pope John's Council than Archbishop Bugnini subsequently admitted in La Riforma Liturgica. I have never claimed to have proof that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason. What I have claimed is that Pope Paul Vl dismissed him because he believed him to be a Freemason - the distinction is an important one. It is possible that the evidence was not genuine and that the Pope was deceived.

Dossier

The sequence of events was as follows. A Roman priest of the very highest reputation came into possession of what he considered to be evidence proving Mgr Bugnini to be a Mason. He had this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul Vl by a cardinal, with a warning that if action were not taken at once he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. The dismissal and exile of the Archbishop followed."

I mentioned on this blog a few months ago a comment by a priest who said when he went to Rome he was surprised to find the idea that there are Masons high up in the Church was common thought among bishops and priests he met in Rome. He mentioned about Bugnini and was told by a very well respected prelate that the story of Bugnini was true because he had met the priest who had found the document left behind in a briefcase by Bugnini.

Pope Benedict prayed that he would not fall victims of the wolves; Fr Malachy Martin warned of this cabal which he said extended from the highest reaches in the Vatican to the bottom and he warned that any manly Pope who tried to stop them would not last long.

What is going on currently is but an extension of that and, hopefully, it is reaching its climax and, having got rid of Pope St John Paul The Great and Benedict XVI this cabal are having a last ditch attempt to liberalise the Church before their time runs out. Of course their time will run out before that ever happens because God is in charge.

Jan

Clyde Catholic said...

Jan, Mark Thomas is not supporting the SSPX, only using it as a foil to praise Pope Francis.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

When children, adult or otherwise praise their fathers this is very virtuous and builds up our fathers and family life. It keeps unity. Constantly nit picking our fathers is divisive and destructive of our fathers and family life.

I want to commend Mark Thomas for praising his Holy Father and ours too! Pope Francis is our Holy Father. He has my love and loyalty and all true Catholics do too!

Anonymous said...

Clyde Catholic, Mark Thomas has absolutely supported the SSPX on earlier comments on this blog.

Father, even St Paul criticised St Peter when it was necessary. Pope Francis has mainly been called out for being ambiguous. I have even read you say that yourself on occasion and I remember one blog that was quickly taken down. Pope Francis himself said he welcomed criticism. He provides enough of that himself - hence his recent comments about the Mayor of Rome.

Yes, we should praise fathers when they do good and are good, but many fathers aren't, and we should not gloss over things that are patently wrong. That is not doing good service to anyone, least of all the fathers.

Jan

Lefebvrian said...

One does not justly praise a father that abuses his wife, the mother of the child. If one praises such a father, one lies and causes additional damage and scandal.

If one has respect for the office of the papacy, then one cannot remain silent when the highest office on earth is abused by the invocation of error. To do so constitutes an underlying contempt for the office or an unhealthy idolatry of the current occupant of the office. Neither of those is the Catholic way.

If you want to know how Catholics react to an erring pope, read about the Dominicans who fought against the heretic John XXII -- they were put out of the Curia and sent to the hinterlands. Those who supported his errors were given the positions of honor in the Curia and the pope's support was given to their writings. The Dominicans stood fast despite the papal persecution because they knew that respect for the papacy necessitates a fight for the correct doctrine, without which the papacy is meaningless.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan...September 30, 2015 at 6:29 AM..."I am sorry but Mark Thomas is just one confused man. As if the FSSP is going to get into blogging. They are into saving souls and not blogging and nor is Bishop Rifan."

"They are into saving souls..."

Precisely. That is why, for example, the Holy See utilized to its great advantaged the printing press. That is why our Popes evangelized (and continue to) the world via the invention of the radio.

That is why our Popes employed the invention of television to their advantage.

In recent times, our Popes recognized the tremendous importance of the Internet in helping to spread the Good News to save souls.

That is why various Cardinals, bishops, and priests, Father McDonald, for example, have taken to blogging...Twitter...Facebook. They have recognized that the Internet is a powerful means to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world.

Jan, have you read the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council's DECREE ON THE MEDIA OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS — INTER MIRIFICA, SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963?

I quote from said document: "The most important of these inventions are those media which, such as the press, movies, radio, television and the like, can, of their very nature, reach and influence, not only individuals, but the very masses and the whole of human society, and thus can rightly be called the media of social communication.

"The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they greatly contribute to men's entertainment and instruction as well as to the *******spread and support of the Kingdom of God*******."

That is precisely why the FSSP, Bishop Rifan, ICK...all the Church's TLM societies and communities should develop powerful Internet presences.

The added benefit to that would be that they could supplant, or at least compete with vicious anti-Pope Francis "Traditionalist" blogs who have become the de facto face and voice of the TLM Movement.

Again, it is Rorate Caeli, not Bishop Rifan, the FSSP, ICK...to whom Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, and so forth, turn whenever they require comments from the TLM community.

To its credit and via its powerful Internet presence, Rorate Caeli has positioned itself to serve as the de facto voice of "Traditional" Catholics, at least in the minds of powerful news media outlets.

Bishop Rifan and the FSSP should at least be major players in that regard...but they aren't.

In fact, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, as compared to Bishop Rifan and the FSSP, utilize the news media more effectively.

You had better believe that it's of vital importance that Bishop Rifan, the FSSP, ICK...enter into the 21st Century in regard to the importance of the Internet and online communications.

After all, as you stated, "they are into saving souls."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."Clyde Catholic, Mark Thomas has absolutely supported the SSPX on earlier comments on this blog."

That is correct. I have adhered to Pope Francis' very positive stance on the SSPX. The same applies to the very positive stance that Bishop Anthanasius Schneider, who serves as Pope Francis' Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX, has offered on the SSPX.

1. In regard to the SSPX, His Holiness Pope Francis has referred to Catholics attached to the SSPX as "faithful" Catholics. They are not "schismatics", "heretics", or "bad" Catholics.

They are, as Pope Francis declared, "faithful" Catholics.

2. His Holiness Pope Francis has recognized the SSPX's "good faith and sacramental practice" as reported to him by "several Brother Bishops."

3. Pope Francis has facilitated the attachment that Catholics have with the SSPX by his having been "motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition" to "establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins."

Therefore, Pope Francis has desired to enhance the spiritual lives of "faithful" Catholics who are attached to the SSPX.

Yep...in line with Pope Francis, Bishop Schneider, and various "Brother Bishops," I have supported the SSPX.

Jan, have you followed their leads in support of the SSPX?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

More importantly, Mark Thomas, in your crusade against Traditionalists for complaining about Pope Francis what have you done about the following on the blog of the SSPX quoting a sermon of Bishop Fellay?

"Pope Francis, a genuine Modernist!

Another troubling quote from Pope Francis:

If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.

Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.” ...

"How much time will be needed for people with authority in the Church to stand up and to say ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I really hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.” ...

Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinal he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him!"

http://sspx.org/en/node/2599

I suspect Mark Thomas won't answer this. He hasn't responded to my query as to why he wasn't critical of the filth on Fr D's site that he wrote extensively on - never once raising a criticism against the pictorial filth etc on there.

Jan

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, why weren't you critical of the graphic displays and profane comments against Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, etc, on Fr D's blog that you commented on such a lot?

Jan

George said...


Jan thank you for the below:

Fr D's blog kindly gave Mark Thomas his own page to paste on:

http://wdtprdad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/space-for-mark-thomas-to-post.html

Never once did I see Mark Thomas complain about the filth displayed on Fr D's blog.



-Thank you for letting me know about one more blog to avoid.

I'll sick with Southern Orders.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan, read the archives on Fr D's blog. I denounced the dirty language. I had several exchanges with Father D over his mockery of the TLM and such holy men as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider.

I also defended several times Father John Zuhlsdorf's human dignity against the foul language and innuendos that were launched against him.

Although I am not a fan of his begging for money and gifts, and am disinterested in his endless travels and vacations, I, for instance, exhorted people on Fr. D's blog to pray to Our Lady of Loreto for Father Zuhlsdorf's safety during his travels.

I rejected time and again the vicious attacks launched by people there who sinned against charity.

I know that this isn't the place...Father McDonald's blog...but Father McDonald-permitting and in answer to Jan's charge against me, here is one of many examples when on Fr. D's blog that I defended Cardinal Burke against one of Fr. D's attacks:

May 1, 2015 at 2:03 PM

"I view Cardinal Burke as man who loves and proclaims Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.

"God has blessed Cardinal Burke with considerable pastoral skills that His Holiness Pope Francis has praised and utilized for the good of Holy Mother Church.

"Pope Francis served God when His Holiness tapped Cardinal Burke to serve as Chaplain to the Order of Malta. That is a very important task that Pope Francis has entrusted to Cardinal Burke.

"I also appreciate the manner in which Cardinal Burke has followed Good Pope Saint John XXIII's lead in regard to liturgy. The Missal of Pope Saint John XXIII is very much appreciated by Cardinal Burke.

"Good and humble Pope Saint John XXIII exhorted Catholics to hold fast to Latin and Gregorian Chant. Good and humble Pope Saint John XXIII exhorted Catholics to hold fast to the Traditional Latin Mass. To see Cardinal Burke obey Good Pope Saint John XIII is beautiful,

"To see Cardinal Burke don the holy and ornate liturgical vesture that Good Pope Saint John XXIII favored is beautiful. Humble Good Pope Saint John XXIII wore the Papal Tiara. He was carried aloft via the Sedia Gestatoria.

"Humble Good Saint John XXIII...staunch promoter of the Traditional Latin Mass, holy and ornate liturgical vesture, Gregorian Chant...staunch promoter of the Latin Church's liturgical tradition.

"Cardinal Burke has followed Good Pope Saint John XXIII's lead. The Missal of Good Pope Saint John XXIII. Promoted by Cardinal Burke. His Holiness Pope Francis also supports and promotes the Missal of Good Pope Saint John XXIII.

"God has blessed us with holy men in Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke. The love Jesus Christ and His Holy Church. In regard to liturgy, I appreciate Pope Francis support of Good Pope Saint John XXIII's Missal.

"I appreciate Cardinal Burke's support of Good Pope Saint John XXIII's Missal.

"It is good to highlight holy men of God."

Jan, do you have additional claims that you wish to lodge against me?

Thank you, Father McDonald. I am sorry to have to post to your blog old messages of mine that I had posted to Fr. D's blog. But I wished to defend myself against Jan's charge in question.

Jan, by the way, are you aware that a few weeks ago Fr. D ran me off his blog when I exhorted he and others to display Pope Francis-like mercy to Cardinal Levada?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."I suspect Mark Thomas won't answer this. He hasn't responded to my query as to why he wasn't critical of the filth on Fr D's site that he wrote extensively on - never once raising a criticism against the pictorial filth etc on there."

Dear Father McDonald, please permit me to respond to Jan's false charge against me.

Jan, here is a message that I posted to Fr. D's blog in response to filth that had been posted there. You charge against me is utterly false. Here is proof.

April 24, 2015 at 8:11 PM

"My policy (on and offline) is to ignore insults. However, I believe that your vile and aggressive remarks to me are beyond the realm of insulting remarks.

"You displayed tremendous rage and aggression. I hope that you heed Pope Francis' call to holiness. "His Holiness calls us to fill our hearts with peace and joy.

"In my estimation, your scatological remark also is a bad sign. I have always found people given to scatological speech suffer from mental imbalances.

"I hope that such does not apply to you. But again, in my experience with said folks...well, your need to express yourself in scatological terms has alarmed me.

"Please pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary for help to conquer your need to attack, at least verbally, your brothers and sisters in Christ. When you assault (verbally or physically) a human being, you, in effect, assault God as each person has been created in God's image.

"Finally, your vile, scatological remark that involved a biretta is very disturbing.

"Jesus Christ sent the Paraclete to guide and inspire Holy Mother Church. Well, Holy Mother Church has been inspired to consecrate the biretta to holy usage.

"At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, for example, the biretta is liturgical vesture.
Why do you desire that the biretta be subjected to such sick, perverse desecration?

"To desire that a holy object consecrated to the service of God be fouled is very, very disturbing and telling. You have revealed some very disturbing things about yourself.

"A man's speech reveals his heart. Please consecrate your heart, mind, speech and soul to God. Begin to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

"I need also to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

"Peace and good health to you and your family.

"Mark Thomas"

------------------------------

Jan, do you have additional false chargers that you wish to level against me?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas has an ego problem. Hey, Mark, nobody cares about your "policies." It ain't about you.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Mark, that isn't good enough. The downright lewd and beyond disgusting stuff on that blog is on every post, including those where you comment. I have not seen you make any complaint about it. The above complaints that you have posted appear to refer only to comments made about yourself. At one stage you even eulogise Fr D and wax lyrical that he has given you a page to comment on! I ask you, who would want to comment on a blog like that except to denounce their vulgarity displayed there?

Sure, you say some nice things above about Cardinal Burke but nothing about the disgusting way he and virtually every other priest, bishop and cardinal, are portrayed as homosexuals on that blog. I have to say that others have pointed this out and then gone on their way. But not you, though. You have continued on and if you are commenting on Fr Z's blog as well then I think it is very disingenous of you to be also commenting on a blog that is specifically set up to snipe at him in a serious uncharitable and beyond vulgar manner. And then to come on and state very similar comments to what is said about him on that blog (and although you don't name names, it was so obvious to me who you meant). Sorry, in this instance to me your actions are beyond the pale.

Jan

Mark Thomas said...

Jan wrote..."Sorry, Mark, that isn't good enough."

Really? Unassailable evidence that you lied about me is "not good enough?"

Yesterday, on Father McDonald's blog at 5:46 P.M., you claimed that I was never critical of bad language posted to Fr. D's blog.

At 10:31 P.M., I displayed proof that your claim was a lie.

Jan, at 5:49 P.M., you claimed, for example, that I was not critical of nasty remarks on Fr D's blog that were directed at Cardinal Burke.

At 10:21 P.M., I displayed my lengthy post from Fr. D's blog during which I defended to the hilt Raymond Cardinal Burke.

Two claims about me from you...and each time I proved that you lied about me.

But "that isn't good enough," according to you. Well, it's good enough for me.

Jan, I twice proved you wrong. That is an undeniable fact.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said...September 30, 2015 at 5:49..."Mark Thomas, why weren't you critical of the graphic displays and profane comments against Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, etc, on Fr D's blog that you commented on such a lot?"

I will again prove that Jan has lied about me in regard to her above false claim.

On March 8, 2015 A.D. at 6:43 PM, at Fr D's blog, I posted the following comment:

"I also condemn the hateful attacks that have flowed from people on this blog who have issued horrific and vile attacks against such Catholics as...

"Father Zuhlsdorf (I don't support his "ministry" but cannot abide the utterly hateful things that have been said about him), Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider...and additional Catholics who are our brothers and sisters in the Faith."

-----------------------------------------------

Jan, please stop lying about me.

I have again shattered your claim that on Fr. D's blog, I was not "critical of the graphic displays and profane comments against Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, etc."

Jan, it's time to please halt your nonsense.

Again, you claimed that I was not critical on Fr. D's blog of attacks against Cardinal Burke. I just proved that condemned "the hateful attacks that have flowed from people on this blog who have issued horrific and vile attacks..." against Cardinal Burke.

I condemned on Fr. D's blog "hateful...horrific and vile attacks" against Bishop Schneider.

I condemned on Fr. D's blog "hateful...horrific and vile attacks" against "Father Zuhlsdorf (I don't support his "ministry" but cannot abide the utterly hateful things that have been said about him), Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider...and additional Catholics who are our brothers and sisters in the Faith."

Jan, please, please, please stop lying about me. Your claims against me have flopped in major fashion.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I beg Father McDonald's indulgence on the following matter...and I hope that this is my final post regard to the following:

On September 30, 2015 A.D., at 5:49 p.m., Jan issued the following claim about me:

"Mark Thomas, why weren't you critical of the graphic displays and profane comments against Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, etc, on Fr D's blog that you commented on such a lot?"

On March 8, 2015 at 6:43 PM, at Fr D's blog, I posted the following comment:

"I also condemn the hateful attacks that have flowed from people on this blog who have issued horrific and vile attacks against such Catholics as...Father Zuhlsdorf (I don't support his "ministry" but cannot abide the utterly hateful things that have been said about him), Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider...and additional Catholics who are our brothers and sisters in the Faith."

I ask anybody who reads this...is Jan correct that wasn't critical of "profane comments against Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, etc, on Fr D's blog that you commented on such a lot?"

Or am I correct?

Did Jan lie or tell the truth about me?

Did I not declare that I condemned "the hateful attacks that have flowed from people on this blog who have issued horrific and vile attacks against such Catholics as...Father Zuhlsdorf (I don't support his "ministry" but cannot abide the utterly hateful things that have been said about him), Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider...and additional Catholics who are our brothers and sisters in the Faith."?

Please, please, please...somebody please inform Jan that the above is a clear, unmistakable condemnation of "horrific and vile attacks against such Catholics as...Father Zuhlsdorf (I don't support his "ministry" but cannot abide the utterly hateful things that have been said about him), Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider...and additional Catholics who are our brothers and sisters in the Faith."

Please tell her as I have had enough of her lies about me.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

George said...

Mark Thomas:

Per Jan I went to the blog and took a one time look about and what I saw was more than enough for me to depart and not go back. Your protestations, by my observations, have not had enough of an effect to change things to my liking. Your comments on that blog (and I read them) may be all well and good, but it is the general content of the blog itself that I found personally disagreeable.

Mark Thomas said...

George..."Per Jan I went to the blog and took a one time look about and what I saw was more than enough for me to depart and not go back. Your protestations, by my observations, have not had enough of an effect to change things to my liking. Your comments on that blog (and I read them) may be all well and good, but it is the general content of the blog itself that I found personally disagreeable."

George, please forgive me and correct me if I have misunderstood the above...

But please understand that I don't endorse in any way Fr. D's Blog. I never offered any "protestations" that defended in any way the "general content" of Fr. D's blog.

The only thing that I protested was the lies that Jan had spread about me. That is, that on Fr. D's blog, I never protested the impure language and attacks against such men as Raymond Cardinal Burke, and Bishop Schneider that had occurred there.
As I demonstrated, I most definitely protested such things.

Here is my take on Fr. D's blog.

Several months had passed when I first learned of Fr. D's blog until the first time that I had posted my first message there. I knew that I had entered into the lion's den.

What spurred me to post there was inspiration that I had drawn from His Holiness Pope Francis. The Holy Father has exhorted us to dialogue with other people, no matter how opposed we and they may be to each other's ideas.

Pope Francis would dialogue with Fr. D and people who post to Fr. D's blog.

-- My purpose there was to attempt to communicate with those folks who would do so with me...and in respectful fashion.

-- I informed Fr. D that I was not comfortable with certain words that he used often in his main posts. I don't recall that he had ever employed bad language during our exchanges.

-- I challenged constantly Fr. D's parodies and claims about the TLM, Holy Tradition, and such Churchmen as Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, and Cardinal Sarah.

-- Although I made it clear on Fr. D's blog that I did not support Father John Zuhlsdorf's online "ministry" and pleas for money and gifts, I several times condemned the practice there to dehumanize Father Zuhlsdorf.

-- I rejected Fr. D's claim that he is not opposed to the TLM...that he simply parodies what he claims are two-faced Churchmen who support the TLM. Said Churchmen are two-faced supposedly as the implication is that they are con men and partakers of grave sins. I rejected that as it's clear to me that Fr. D despises the TLM.

Now, some positives...

-- Until his final post when, about one month ago, he turned against me, Fr. D had treated me well. When I first posted to his blog, and time and again afterward, one commenter after another exhorted Fr. D to ban me from his blog.

However, he assured me from the beginning that I was free to post to his blog. That impressed me as he noted that he and I did not agree on many issues. He treated me well.

-- He went out of his way in major fashion when he granted me a separate space to post to his blog. That was a very kind and amazing gesture.

At first, Fr. D publicized that space on his blog's main page. However, he discontinued that practice. The space that he had set aside for me had become basically a secret on his blog. Posting to that space had become useless to me.

But I remain impressed that he had even bothered to grant me such space on his blog. That was very nice of him.

-- My impression is that Fr. D cares greatly about people who are hurting and struggling spiritually, physically, emotionally, and financially.

-- My impression is that Fr. D is tolerant to a great extent of people who oppose his opinions.

-- My impression is that Fr. D possesses great comedic talent. But I wish that he would employ cleaner comedy when making his points.

Should Father McDonald approve this post...and I understand as to why he may not...I thank him.

I hope that we're finished with the topic at hand.

Pax.

Mark Thomas