Tuesday, September 26, 2017


Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict, the divisions in the Church were kept at bay and there was a kind of peaceful coexistence. I often said I preferred the Church of the 1990's (and through Pope Benedict) than the Church of the 60's, 70's or 80's.

That's all changed under Pope Francis who has returned us to the 1960's and 70's rancor but this time on steroids!

Cardinal Gerhard Müller.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller. (Edward Pentin photo)
  Sep. 26, 2017
Cardinal Müller Suggests Pope Francis Appoint Group of Cardinals to Debate His Critics
The prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says the Pope deserves “full respect” and his “honest critics deserve a convincing answer” as the Vatican declines to comment on a filial correction of the Holy Father, made public on Sunday.


rcg said...

Hey! Mueller reads my posts!

Tom Makin said...

I just don't understand why the Holy Father won't respond and clarify. The Dubia and now this Filial Correction are big deals. Is it hubris? I'm really beginning to think there may be something to the narcissism claim.

Henry said...

From a Catholic Herald editor, the best line of the day:

"Sin has consequences. Waugh knew that. So do the authors of the filial correction. The question is, does the Pope?"


ByzRC said...

Perhaps there has been no response as responding will possibly not resolve the outstanding issues or, the answer lies somewhere between yes and no.

Mark Thomas said...

Cardinal Müller's suggestion would not appease the "Pope Francis is the Evil Clown" right-wing. Cardinal Müller argued that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox. His arguments in question were useless in having convinced the right-wing otherwise.

To the right-wing, Pope Francis is a heretic. AL is heretical. The Novus Ordo is evil. One Cardinal, including Cardinal Müller, and bishop after another is a "Novus Ordo, New Church, heretical sellout.

The right-wing will not accept anything other than their fantasy world in which Pope Francis (as well as each post-Conciliar Popes) is labeled a "heretic," then disposed...

...the Novus Ordo must be condemned as evil, then outlawed...Vatican II must be condemned as heretical, then discarded by the Church...

...ecumenism, Jews, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Moslems must be condemned in thunderous tones.

On and on goes the list of actions that the right-wing demands from Rome.

Cardinal Müller, let us not waste time via a debate with Pope Francis' critics.

Here is debate...


Rome: Pope Francis and AL are orthodox.

Pope Francis' critics: Pope Francis an AL are heretical.


There you go. That is the debate in two seconds.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Yes, that's the debate if you are an uneducated Catholic. Thanks for the laughs

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict, the divisions in the Church were kept at bay and there was a kind of peaceful coexistence."

Father, were you aware of the Catholic right-wing world during that time?

Throughout his Pontificate, the Catholic right-wing trashed Pope Saint John Paul viciously. A portion of the right-wing was a bit nicer to Pope Benedict XVI.

But the right-wing has always been vicious in regard to the New Mass, Vatican II, and one "modernist" after another.

The sense that the situation is more pronounced today is due to instant communication offered by the Internet. Years ago, the right-wing operated predominately by print.

Today, the right-wing broadcasts its vile rage via the Internet...instant communication.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

The right-wing's hatred of His Holiness Pope Francis is not limited to Amoris Laetitia. The right-wing has declared that Pope Francis has espoused one heresy after another that goes beyond AL.

For that matter, the right-wing's hatred extends far beyond Pope Francis.

-- Cardinal Müller is a modernist.

-- Every Cardinal, bishop, and priest who doesn't offer the TLM is likely a homosexual.

-- The likes of Father McDonald, and each priest who offers the Novus Ordo, is very much part of the "problem"...which will end only when the "evil" Novus Ordo is condemned and outlawed.

-- One Cardinal and bishop after another is a heretic.

-- Vatican II must be condemned, then consigned to history's trash can.

-- Pope Francis is a communist.

-- Pope Francis is not the real Pope.

-- Pope Francis must be disposed.

-- Jews and homosexuals control the Vatican and Church.

-- The Church must withdraw from the Ecumenical Movement.

-- The Pope, Cardinals, and bishops must conform the Church's Social Teaching to the Republican Party's platform.

Fine...have a group of Cardinal's debate Pope Francis' critics. Just be aware of the above.

The Cardinals who participate in the debate must conform themselves to the above propositions...or will be condemned by the right-wing.

Everybody must march in lockstep with the right-wing...or be trampled.

Oh...and when the debate/discussion concludes, right-wingers will return to attacking right-wingers.

The SSPX vs. the SSPX Resistance. Rorate Caeli versus Father Zuhlsdorf. Right-wing sedevacantists versus everybody else.

Right-wing nonsense.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

From Edward Pentin's article:

"The Register has learned that senior officials believe a response is not warranted, partly because they say it has been signed by only a relatively small number of Catholics they consider not to be major names, and because one of them is Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, whom they view as a renegade in charge of a priestly fraternity not in full communion with Rome."

Yes, the "correction's" link to the SSPX is detrimental to whatever credibility that the "correction" may have enjoyed.

The "correction's" reference to the preposterous "Pope Benedict XVI is the real Pope," which right-wing bloggers have seized upon in their approval and promotion of the "correction," is an embarrassment to the "correction's" authors.

There are many credibility issues in regard to the "correction."

The people behind the "correction" botched badly their document, as well as its presentation.

But I return to the following:

Why on earth the "correction's" authors included the reference to the "Pope Benedict XVI is the real Pope" conspiracy theory. Right-wingers have seized upon that to declare that the "correction" supports said conspiracy theory.

The "correction's" authors made a tremendous, monumental mistake when they opened the door to having their "correction" seized by bizarre "Pope Benedict XVI is the real Pope" conspiracy theorists.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I found the "correction's link to Bishop Fellay and the SSPX interesting.

In 1988 A.D., the True Church "corrected" Bishop Fellay via excommunication...excommunication! The "filial correction" is a joke compared to the True Church's correction of Bishop Fellay.

The True Church, concerned with Bishop Fellay's standing before God and His Holy Church, acted in merciful fashion toward Bishop Fellay. However, Bishop Fellay rejected and scoffed at the True Church's merciful and authoritative correction in question.

But today, Bishop Fellay expects His Holiness Pope Francis to accept "correction" via a document that lacks canonical status within the Church.

When Holy Mother Church, who possess power and authority from God, corrected Bishop Fellay, he result was that Bishop Fellay turned his back upon the True Church's powerful correction in question.

Now, Bishop Fellay expects Pope Francis to accept "correction."

But Pope Francis is free to follow Bishop Fellay's example when it comes to "correction."

What is good for Bishop Fellay is good for Pope Francis.

Oh...Bishop Fellay refused also to adhere to Pope Benedict XVI's "correction" in that Bishop Fellay and the SSPX refused to accept the Doctrinal Preamble that would have restored the Society to Rome's good graces.

Oh...then there is Archbishop Lefebvre's refusal to accept correction from the True Church of God.

Yep...the SSPX's link to the "filial correction" is interesting...as well as destructive to the "correction's" credibility.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Here is a proposal:

When Bishop Fellay and the SSPX respond to the Holy Mother Church's correction to obtain regularization from the True Church...then His Holiness Pope Francis will respond to the "filial correction."


Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

Do you actually know the meaning of the term 'right-wing'? Or recognize that some of us don't regard it as a pejorative label? Those who describe themselves as 'left-wing' are actually proud of it, and although I believe them to be wrong on most issues, I can understand where they're coming from.

Your prolix and disjointed comments are becoming increasingly tiresome, and suggest that you have psychological issues which you really need to address.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas. You have too much time on your hands. I would suggest you stop reading "Church news" and go out and have a beer, read a book, go on a date, go for ice cream. Get your mind of of this stuff. Go to confession and live a good Catholic life. This stuff is overwhelming you.

Mark Thomas said...

Note to Bishop Fellay:

Here is your golden opportunity to demonstrate to His Holiness Pope Francis the manner in which a humble Catholic accepts correction.

Beginning in 1988 A.D., Holy Mother Church has corrected you in the hope that you would return to full-communion with the True Church.

However, Bishop Fellay, during the past 29 years, you have refused to accept the merciful correction that Holy Mother Church has presented to you.

Bishop Fellay, please accept the authoritative, merciful correction that God's True and Holy Church has offered to you.

In turn, you will serve as an example to Pope Francis in regard to the "filial correction" that you expect him to accept.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Are you still supporting Rodrigo Borgia and Leo X? After all, they were elected Pope. Why don't you answer this rather simple question. Your views of papal primacy are heretical. Even Pius IX would be embarrassed by your groveling, slobbering, and un-natural views of the Pope's authority. Do you know the Pope's most important title is Servus Servorum Dei? Do you have any idea what that stands for?

FYI, if you are left-wing, you are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, ergo, a fake catholic.

Please stop embarrassing yourself and burdening us with your ridiculous blather.

Joseph Johnson said...

"Some of us don't regard it as a pejorative label . ."
You're absolutely correct John Nolan! I'm a "right-wing" ('been voting for Republicans for President since 1980) Catholic lawyer who loves the EF Latin Mass and am happily (by the Grace of God) beginning my 20th year teaching (some would say "indoctrinating") children in Parish Religious Education.

Cardinal Mueller's most recent proposal should be taken up, and publicly exercised, for the good of the Church . .

Gene said...

Amen from another right winger.

Anonymous said...

I must admit I feel very uncomfortable with the Pope's refusal to dialogue with his own cardinals. If Pope Francis is as he says "a loyal son of the Church" and if no doctrine has changed then why not engage the cardinals who are respectfully asking for clarification. If no doctrine has changed then why not answer the dubia? I really find the Pope's attitude suspect. Because of it my defenses are up and I think he has something to hide. I don't trust him anymore because of his refusal to engage his own cardinals.

John Nolan said...

Joseph Johnson

A good example of a right-winger in the British context is Jacob Rees-Mogg MP. Educated at Eton and Oxford he is a still young Catholic father of six, expresses himself with admirable lucidity and effortless courtesy which makes him almost unique in the House of Commons, and has attracted a wide following of all shades of political opinion who would like to see him as Prime Minister.

In a recent interview he expressed himself as opposed to abortion in all circumstances, and when asked if he thought 'gay sex' was sinful (a trap that had swallowed the leader of the Liberal Party) simply said that it was not for him to decide on what was sin and what was not, but as a Catholic he followed the teachings of the Church.

One might have thought this would have led to his universal condemnation, but surprisingly a lot of people said that they dissented from his views but admired him for stating them honestly, a rare thing in a politician.

Google him and you will find a lot of his speeches/interviews on Youtube.

Henry said...

Time for a comment on the post at hand?

That's all changed under Pope Francis who has returned us to the 1960's and 70's rancor but this time on steroids!

Because he's so vividly demonstrated that the main enemy of truth is not error, but ambiguity.

As in a Church document that can be interpreted differently by different Church officials.

Mark Thomas said...

TJM said..."Are you still supporting Rodrigo Borgia and Leo X? After all, they were elected Pope. Why don't you answer this rather simple question. Your views of papal primacy are heretical. Even Pius IX would be embarrassed by your groveling, slobbering, and un-natural views of the Pope's authority."

TJM, may you and your family enjoy peace and good health.

As to my "groveling, slobbering, and un-natural views of the Pope's authority."

God teaches that our salvation is tied to the unity and obedience that we owe to the Roman Pontiff. We risk eternal damnation should we reject the awesome authority that, by way of our Majestic God, the Pope enjoys over us.

The Catholic Church commands me to submit to the Roman Pontiff. The Catholic Church commands me to obey the Church of Rome's teachings. The Catholic Church has declared that "in the Apostolic See, the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate."

I will always "grovel and slobber" when it comes to the Roman Pontiff, who enjoys full authority over me. God has empowered the Roman Pontiff to teach, govern, and sanctify me.

Holy Mother Church teaches that I am to be like a newborn infant in the manner that I, in docility, receive Her teachings.

Holy Mother Church teaches that "religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;"

-- "...whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope." (Pope Saint Pius X, 1912 A.D.)

I pray that, with God's help, I will always "grovel and slobber" in regard to the awesome, monumental authority that the Pope possesses over me.

God speaks through His Holiness Pope Francis. That is the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

I refuse to listen to anybody who opposes Pope Francis' Magisterial Authority.

Opposition to Holy Mother Church's Magisterial Authority is satanic.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

TJM said..."FYI, if you are left-wing, you are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, ergo, a fake catholic."

That doesn't apply to me. I am neither left-wing, right-wing...just Catholic. By the way, there are left-wing Catholics who are pro-life.

Anyway...I am pro-life...100 percent.

Pro-life, besides opposition to artificial birth control, abortion, and homosexual unions, includes "justice: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow."

Pro-life also means helping the poor, securing the rights of workers, protecting immigrants...so much more.

As a Catholic, I am, Deo gratias, pro-life.


Mark Thomas

******* May Bishop Fellay, who has called His Holiness Pope Francis to correction, accept, in turn, with humility, the True Church's correction which, since 1988 A.D., has been offered to him in mercy to restore him to full-communion with the True Church. *******

TJM said...

Mark Thomas, you are left-wing and your very language betrays you. I hope you are not conflating an immigrant with an illegal alien! HUGE difference.

Anonymous 2 said...


Not under the law. Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (countless times by the way) states:

“(15) The term ‘immigrant’ means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens . . . “


The distinction you are after is the one between “lawful permanent resident” and undocumented immigrant.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Let me expand to be absolutely clear.

The distinction you are after is between those immigrants who are “lawful permanent residents” and those immigrants who are “undocumented” (often referred to inaccurately in popular and non-legal parlance as “illegal aliens”).

I hope this helps. The following more detailed explanation addressing the situation before Trump may also help clarify matters further:


TJM said...

Anonymous 2 (kavanaugh)

Take a gander at this:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Notice there is no "undocumented immigrant" category. The statute refers to them as an alient, and based on the statute, they are illegal aliens. Thanks for the laughs

Anonymous 2 said...


I am quite familiar with Section 275 (a) of the INA, thank you. Where does it use the term “illegal alien,” as opposed to describing aliens/noncitizens (or immigrants–see INA section 101(a)(15) quoted earlier) who have committed a particular kind of immigration offense, a particular kind of illegal or criminal act?

But describing a person, as opposed to an act committed by that person, as illegal has the effect of dehumanizing that person. And of course, this is exactly why the term “illegal alien” is used in the political debates over immigration.

I will concede that, by contrast, the term “undocumented immigrant” is intended to humanize those aliens/noncitizens who have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their nonimmigrant visas.

Language certainly does shape our minds, our psyches, and our souls. And given that there is no perfectly neutral term, which term is preferable—the one that humanizes or the one that dehumanizes? What does the Catholic Church teach?

And I am not Father Kavanaugh as you so confidently, but mistakenly, assert.