Since Pope Francis has already taken such competent care of the Catholic Church's spiritual needs, he can spend his time holding audiences with leaders of the “Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat” on such topics as food security, nutrition, climate change, disaster risk reduction and resilient means of subsistence. From the Vatican Press Office’s bulletin of the audience:
Address of the Holy Father
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I offer a warm welcome to you, the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders. Your presence here is a visible sign of the rich variety of cultures and the great natural beauty of the Pacific region.
I share your concern for the peoples of the region, especially those exposed to the extreme environmental and climate events that are becoming more frequent and intense. Of concern too is the grave impact of rising sea levels and the disturbing and continuous deterioration of the barrier reef, a marine ecosystem of immense importance. In this regard, I remember the disquieting question posed almost thirty years ago by the Bishops of the Philippines: “Who turned the wonderworld of the seas into underwater cemeteries bereft of colour and life?” (cf. Laudato Si’, 41). A number of causes have led to this environmental decay and, sadly, many of them are due to short-sighted human activity connected with certain ways of exploiting natural and human resources, the impact of which ultimately reaches the ocean bed itself (cf. ibid.).
When we speak of rising sea levels, which “mainly affect impoverished coastal populations who have nowhere else to go” (ibid., 48), our thoughts turn to the problem of global warming widely discussed in various international forums and meetings. In these very days COP-23, the twenty-third session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention Framework of the United Nations, is meeting in Bonn, under the presidency of one of the countries you represent, the Fiji Islands. It is my hope that the efforts of COP-23, and those yet to come, will always keep in mind the greater picture of that “earth without borders, with its highly rarified atmosphere”, as it was described by one of the astronauts currently orbiting in the International Space Station, with whom I recently had a fascinating conversation.
Read the complete bulletin HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: Everything with the Church is well and good. All humans are virtuous and all souls saved. Time to start spending all my time on ecology! Have to do something to bide my time until I return to Mother Earth, and they can commence proceedings for my canonization.
Inspired by Francis commemorating the Reformation on Halloween of last year, Ecumenical events commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation are now coming to a diocese near you! Just a few examples include Grand Rapids, MI, Saskatoon, Canada, Pittsburgh, PA, Lansing, MI., and Lima, OH. Other dioceses like Orlando. FL and Pueblo, CO already enjoyed their commemorations earlier this year. Far from condemning these events, the USCCB is actually facilitating and encouraging them by posting a “2017 Commemoration of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation Resource Guide” on their website.
“I was dreamin' when I wrote this. Forgive me if it goes astray.”
After reading through their latest blog posts, this eloquently sums up what must be going on in the minds of some of our most beloved Neo-Catholics. As the Church burns in a five alarm helmet fire, I decided to peruse the Neo-Catholic best and brightest to see what light they were shedding on this crisis of unprecedented proportions unleashed by Hurricane Francis.
First I wandered over the National Catholic Register and clicked on the Commentary section. I quickly started scanning for any commentaries on Pope Francis. I scanned…and scanned…and scanned. Finally I came to an article entitled, “A Pope a President and a Bishop.” However, after clicking on it, I quickly learned it was about John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Fulton Sheen. Another recent article reflected on Mother Teresa.
I then clicked on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s page on the site and came across nothing about Francis, but did find an article from over a year ago titled, “Sts. Faustina and John Paul Prove Providence Triumphs Over Politics.” Good to know.
Finally I did find an article with Pope in the title called, “When the Pope Praises You and the World Puts You on a “Hate” List.” I scanned the article looking for the reference to Francis and found this:
Pope Francis, easily recognized by not only Catholics but by other Christians and those of various faiths around the globe, is one of the few veritably unitive purveyors of love in modern times. As such, the discerning mind is correctly led to surmise that the Holy Father is a worthy assessor of what constitutes authentic love.
Wow. Then reading further in the article, what do you know? Look who shows up again:
Nearly 30 years ago, Saint John Paul II (who embraced essentially the same views on chastity, on marriage as between one man and one woman, on the importance of the family, on the right to life for the unborn, and other comparable positions that the modern culture finds repugnant to popular sensibilities) wrote his apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici: On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World. This man, who is now in heaven…
You get the idea.
Then I noticed a name I had not heard in quite some time. The verbose Neo-Catholic apologist “Cowboy” Dave Armstrong. Cowboy Dave is best known for the encyclopedic stream of consciousness rambling tomes he used to post on his now defunct website and now posts on Facebook. On his old website, which looks like it may have been hosted by Geocities, Dave devoted an entire webpage full of linked articles railing against every aspect of Traditionalism. We are proud to say that The Remnant alone comprises two of the links which take up almost 200KB of pure text.
Any doubt I had that Dave would stick to his Neo-Catholic bona-fides was destroyed back in 2014 when, far from distancing himself from Francis, Dave did a reverse 4 and a half somersault pike off the high dive of papolatry right into the pool of Neo-Modernism by writing, “Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition.”
Yes for only $2.99 (no idea why the cost would be that low), you can learn the truth about how the following Francis blunders were all perfectly orthodox:
In any case, Dave’s latest on The Register is entitled, “Luther's Disgust Over Protestant Sectarianism and Radical Heresies.” Thus, while the Church burns, blind guides like Cowboy Dave prattle on about Protestant apologetics like it's still 1999 and all we have to worry about is debating James White on audio tape. All the while the man has zero clue that his own pope is rehabilitating Luther & praising him, not to mention that he also condemns Dave’s apologetics as “solemn nonsense.”
Meanwhile, as Dave and the rest of the Neo-Catholic blogosphere are driving their time machine DeLorean to relive their glory days, It's getting so bad in the real world that even if Francis proclaimed from St. Peter's that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, I doubt any Cardinal, Bishop or Priest would rise up and say "Anathema!" Instead, we'd probably just get a very respectful letter from Cardinal Burke and his one living Cardinal friend politely asking the Holy Father what he meant when he said the Eucharist is merely a symbol.
Then everyone would yawn and life would go on as our heresiarch pope blathers on. It might raise a Neo-Catholic eye-brow or two, but only Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture and a few others who are starting to move their eyelids as they come out of their coma.
We have to ask ourselves at what point does this man finally cross the line and whatever remaining Catholics we have left physically enter St. Peters and throw him in the Tiber? Francis has already obliterated Catholic teaching on Matrimony, Penance, and the Eucharist and in doing so, opened up a Pandora's Box of erroneous rationale to justify any sort of sin. Are we supposed to simply live as Catholics with a heresiarch as pope as long as he doesn't proclaim his errors ex cathedra? Are we going to have a cornucopia of modernist saints alongside our ecumenical directory & “irreversible” Novus Ordo Mass?
At this point we have indeed reached a scary moment where it is becoming apparent that not a single member of the hierarchy is willing to stand up for the teaching of Jesus Christ against a man who is spreading error, lies, and sin, throughout the universal Church. I honestly think he is so emboldened at this point that he feels he can do whatever he wants with absolutely zero consequence. For if tomorrow he denied Christ rose from the dead, would anyone care?
For He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
 If you’d like to do penance experience Dave’s style of apologetics, please check to see his response to this article. I predict it will consist of no less than 2,000 words, including Dave meticulously defining terms used in hyperbole in order to prove I exaggerated. I get bonus points if he name drops Fr. James Hardon, SJ.
 Some argue Benedict XVI denied the dogma of the Resurrection in his book Jesus of Nazareth. Thus Francis declaring it openly is not that far-fetched.
Today is the traditional Feast Day of St. Pius X. This is, of course, a day of prayer and remembrance of this great and holy Saint. However, it is also a day where we should perhaps ask a few questions as to the reason behind the odd praise modern certain prelates, including the pope, are giving him.
On August 21st, the Feast Day of St. Pius X in the New Calendar, Pope Francis raised eyebrows by attending a Mass in St. Pius X’s honor and expressing admiration for him. As Vatican Insider reported:
“I am a devotee of St. Pius X…” This is how Francis explained his presence among the faithful in the chapel dedicated to St. Pius X to Mgr. Lucio Bonora. The chapel, located in St. Peter’s Basilica, houses the relics of the late Venetian Pope. Lucio Bonora is a prelate from Treviso in northern Italy who works in the Secretariat of State and is a scholar of St. Pius X. On Friday 21 August, the day the Church commemorates St. Pius X, Francis celebrated a private early morning mass and entered the Basilica to pray at the tomb of his predecessor. At 7, while he was kneeling down at the altar, Fr. Bonora began his own mass celebration. When he entered the chapel, he saw about 50 or so faithful and lo and behold, the Pope was there too. According to the website of Treviso’s diocesan weeklyLa Vita del Popolo, Francis decided to stay for the mass celebration. He rose from the pew to exchange the embrace of peace and got in line to receive communion, followed by a moment of worship when Francis gave thanks kneeling…
Many traditional Catholics were wondering, and still are wondering, how a very liberal pope like Francis could possibly be a devotee of St. Pius X. Most shook their heads and chalked it up to the seemingly erratic and contradictory nature of many of the pope’s other actions. But is there a method to this madness?
The key is to recognize the difference in how traditionalists see St. Pius X and liberals see St. Pius X. Traditionalists see the man who bravely fought a crusade against the plague of Modernism in the Church, and sanctioned clergy spreading this error, all the while defending Catholic Truth. Liberals, on the other hand, dismiss St. Pius X’s actions against Modernism as limited to their time and historical context, and instead focus on St. Pius X’s love of poverty and his reforms of the liturgy and curia. But most of all, liberals love to cite his loosening of Eucharistic reception laws to enable the faithful to receive daily and opening up Communion reception to children of younger ages.
Now, to be certain, all of these acts and aspects of St. Pius X that liberals point to were good in and of themselves. The danger lies in the disingenuous way the left spins these events, attempting to co-opt St. Pius X’s legacy to support their own agenda. The first thing they do is to confuse, perhaps deliberately, the irreformable doctrinal acts of Pius X with the changeable pastoral and prudential acts of Pius X.
The writings of Pius X condemning Modernism were not just limited to his time, but are for all time. Modernism was erroneous then and it is erroneous now precisely because it is an attack on the very nature of the Church and of the unchanging nature of dogma.
On the other hand, the disciplinary changes Pius X made, such as allowing more frequent reception of Holy Communion, were changeable and were brought about by the times in which he lived. No doubt Pius X believed that holy reverence and respect for the Eucharist was at such a high point in the Church that there would be no danger of the faithful treating frequent Communion in a casual manner. Instead, Pius X believed that, in this context, expanding the opportunities for Holy Communion could only increase holiness and devotion in the faithful. This was a prudential judgment and a wise one for the times Pius X lived in.
In contrast, it is interesting to think what Pius X would do in our own day. Today hardly anyone goes to confession, yet the Communion lines are full. In addition, the Body of Christ is often treated with no more reverence than potato chips being handed out by laymen to the hands of other standing laymen. In this context, it is not unreasonable to believe that Pius X would immediately roll back his allowance of frequent reception of Communion until this tragic attitude on behalf of the laity was remedied.
In addition to the Eucharist, liberals focus on the poverty and love of the poor of Pius X. It is true Pius X possessed these qualities. Yet there are key differences in how St. Pius X approached these issues and liberals approach these issues. For one, the focus in Pius X’s pontificate was the defense of orthodoxy. For being generous to the poor means nothing if the poor, and the rest of the Church, are infected with soul-destroying error. In addition, although St. Pius X grew up in poverty and disliked the ostentation of the papacy, he endured it out of respect for the papal office. All of his acts of humility and poverty were done in private. We only know about them through the later writing of witnesses. He did not make public shows of disowning and condemning the glory that all Catholics wanted to bestow upon Christ’s vicar, thereby, in effect, making all of his predecessors appear to have been proud and vain. (For more information on the true poverty and humility of St. Pius X, see the Remnant article “The False God of Poverty”)
The process of co-opting and distorting St. Pius X’s legacy can be seen most clearly through a June 13, 2014 ZENIT interview with Fr. Bernard Ardura, the president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences. 2014 was the 100th anniversary of St. Pius X’s death and the Committee held a day of study titled, “Saint Pius X: A Reforming Pope Facing the Challenges of the New Century." In the interview Fr. Ardura stated the following:
During his pontificate he was a very important reformer, but between his reformative activities, he also had to intervene on doctrine-related issues, as he was facing a difficult movement, called modernism. And his condemnation of modernism obscured the positive parts of his ministry. He was remembered as a Pope of condemnation, but, instead was truly a great reformer, a great innovator. Yes, he condemned modernism, but he, in fact, was very modern, which is obvious through his reforms.
St. Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism “obscured” the “positive” parts of his ministry? Does this mean St. Pius X’s fight against Modernism was a “negative” part of his ministry? “A Pope of condemnation”? Since the advent of Vatican II has the very notion of condemning anything, no matter how dangerous to souls, considered a bad thing? Yet look at what Fr. Ardura focuses on as the “positive.” He calls St. Pius X a “great reformer, great innovator” “very modern.” If one listens to Fr. Ardura one would think St. Pius X was the early 20th century forerunner to Hans Kung. When you see liberal prelates praising St. Pius X, remember these words of Fr. Ardura. For this invented caricature is what they have turned the great Pope into. Fr. Ardura continues:
He was more aware than other papal predecessors that the state of the pontificate had to go forward and could not go backward, only forward…Another key contribution was related to receiving the sacraments, particularly Communion. He advanced the idea that the young, around the age of seven, could receive their First Holy Communion, even if they didn’t fully know Church doctrine at that point. Also, he advanced the idea of adults going to Communion more often. Before the thought was that one had to have confessed before going to Communion. Although he advocated going to confession regularly, he advanced the idea of going to Communion often, even encouraging Christians to go daily.
“Before the thought was that one had to have confessed before going to Communion”? What an appallingly strange thing for the President of a Pontifical Committee to say. Is Fr. Ardura saying St. Pius X felt this no longer to be the case? That as long as Catholics went to confession “regularly” they did not have to make sure that all mortal sins were confessed each time they received Holy Communion? Obviously, St. Pius X thought no such thing. And Fr. Ardura is in charge of studying the legacy of this great sainted pope? God help us. Yet Fr. Ardura saved the “best” for last as he tries to define Modernism to ZENIT…
It is an error, a philosophical error, that relativizes a bit of everything, and from a doctrinal point of view, is something delicate. For example, different ideas were promulgated in the particular, cultural context of the time. But today, we don't have to relativize these different views on the doctrine. Pius X, we can say, was working in a particular context.
The Church in which we believe, is inspired by the Holy Spirit in a context that is not by some accidental cause, but contains the substance of teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, we don’t have to relativize these realities, which are fundamental, because otherwise, we would have to put into discussion all we believe.
And there you have it. Modernism, called “the synthesis of all heresies” by St. Pius X is now “something delicate?” Apparently Pius X did not agree. For it was reported how he responded when asked to go easy on the Modernists:
“Kindness is for fools. They want them to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses but they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can. War is not made with charity, it is a struggle, a duel. If Our Lord were not terrible he would not have given an example in this too. See how he treated the Philistines, the sowers of error, the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the traitors in the temple. He scourged them with whips!”
Hardly a “delicate” approach. Then Fr. Ardura states that “Pius X, we can say, was working in a particular context.” But what possible “context” could Pius X have been working in that would change one iota of his clear and repeated doctrinal condemnations of Modernism? For the context these decrees were issued in changes nothing regarding their content. The author of the Modernism entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia even had this to say about the nature of Pius X’s condemnations:
In the present writer's opinion, since the new confirmation accorded to these decrees [Pascendi and Lamentabili] by the Motu Proprio, they contain in their doctrinal conclusions the infallible teaching of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
So why all of the sudden praise and rewriting of St. Pius X’s legacy by liberal clerics, you ask? The answer may have something to do with the upcoming Synod on the Family. We know the left is desperate to find theological support for allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion. If they are able to spin the legacy of St. Pius X into one of a “modern reformer” especially as regards the reception of Holy Communion, they can explain their position as simply a furtherance and logical extension of the late pope’s “liberalizing” Eucharistic policy.
Just consider some of the quotes I cited above in the context of allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion (emphasis added):
· He was remembered as a Pope of condemnation, but, instead was truly a great reformer, a great innovator. Yes, he condemned modernism, but he, in fact, was very modern, which is obvious through his reforms.
· He was more aware than other papal predecessors that the state of the pontificate had to go forward and could not go backward, only forward.
· Another key contribution was related to receiving the sacraments, particularly Communion…, he advanced the idea of adults going to Communion more often. Before the thought was that one had to have confessed before going to Communion…
In addition, we recall that in Evangelii Gaudium Francis stated that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness.” These words of Francis make the following line in the closing paragraph of the Vatican Insider article all the more interesting: “He [St. Pius X] presented the Eucharist not as a prize for those who are already perfect but as a daily support for people to get closer to God.”
As Pope Francis stated, he is a “devotee of St. Pius X.” The question we should be asking is which St. Pius X is the pope referring to? The true St. Pius X who defended unchanging doctrine? Or the fictional modern, innovating, and reforming “Pius X” of Fr. Ardura? Come October, we may find out.
The Real St. Pius X
Finally, lest I be accused of depressing my readers on such a glorious feast day, I would like to end with the words of Eminence Cardinal Mercier regarding St. Pius X in his Lenten Pastoral letter of February 2, 1915:
The winning kindness of the Holy Father had none of the soft sentimentality of the weak. Pius X was strong. It is currently reported that he was the writer of a short prayer which priests have to say at certain times for their bishop. It runs as follows:
“Stet et pascat in fortitudine tua, Domine, in sublimit ate nominis tui” (Strong in Thy strength, 0 Lord, let him stand and feed the flock in the sublimity of Thy name).
And this, unless I am mistaken, is the characteristic note of the late Pope—a wonderful combination of fatherly tenderness with a force of character that made him master of himself and imparted to his soul steadiness of equilibrium, filling his expression with that blending of gravity, serenity, condescension, and almost of playfulness, which so strongly attracted everyone by its charm.
The public looked on with wonder, sometimes with anxiety, and admired the virile Pontiff in his hand-to-hand struggle with Modernism.
In the days of Luther and Calvin, had the Church possessed a Pope of the temper of Pius X, would Protestantism have succeeded in getting one-third of Europe to break loose from Rome?
Pius was a man of keen insight and decision. He would not let himself be seduced by the cajoleries of reformers, naively ambitious of infusing the veins of the Church with new blood, and dreaming of modernizing her to suit the fancies and errors of up-to-date Protestantism and Rationalism. True to Catholic Tradition, he blazoned forth the axiom that in the fifth century, St. Vincent of Lerins, himself the disciple of a martyr-bishop of the third century, St. Cyprian, used against those who favoured a doctrinal advance which the Christian conscience would have felt to be not an improvement but a revolution, wherein all the treasures of the past would have disappeared: Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est (No innovations: cleave to tradition).
His plan once laid down, the Pope pursued it, both as a whole and in detail, in the sphere of doctrine and also of discipline, in scientific works, in the Press, in literature, in the teaching of Seminaries and of Universities and even in the persons of those whom he loved most; he pursued its fullest realization, I say, with an energy and perseverance that were sometimes disconcerting.
When we survey from afar this line of action, many-sided yet one, broad, and yet penetrating, we are unanimous in our admiration of our great Pope’s force of character, and in thanking Providence for saving Christianity from an immense peril, not only of a single heresy but of all heresies combined, amalgamated together in a more or less treacherous way.” (Leltre Pastorale et mandement de Carême de 1915)
(Republished from The Remnant's blog, September 3, 2015, for the Feast of Pope St. Pius X)
Last week cruxnow.com reported that on Amoris guidelines, Brazil's conference of bishops is leaving sacraments open for divorced and remarried Catholics.
SÃO PAULO, Brazil - The Brazilian Bishops’ National Conference did not close the door that leads to the sacraments for divorced and remarried couples.
In a pastoral guide to Amoris Laetitia, the bishops said that, even though Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation reaffirms the indissolubility of marriage, it also notes that “conditioning factors and extenuating circumstances” may “attenuate or even annul the moral responsibility and imputability of unlawful acts.”
The 28-page document entitled Welcoming the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by the Church in Brazil was released late last week. It was elaborated by the conference’s staff after discussions of Francis’s document on the family during the bishops’ 55th Ordinary General Assembly, which took place April 26 to May 5, 2017.
Brazil’s bishops affirm that Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitiaavoids a “normative pronouncement” on cases like those of divorced and remarried people. “The apostolic exhortation does not present a guide for the discernment of the so-called irregular cases,” says paragraph 37. Instead, Amoris “reinforces the need of a pastoral attention that is really particularized.”
The document argues that Amoris is not a rupture with previous Church teaching, but a development. “Nothing more contrary to the content of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia than the idea of a moral relativism or even situational morality. On the contrary, it reaffirms the doctrine about the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic malice of adultery,” says paragraph 39.
As it follows, the text calls on pastors to “enter” in concrete cases, “finding the proper way to help the formation of the faithful’s conscience.” Read the rest HERE
REMNANT COMMENT: What more do people need to see? Francis destroyed Catholic marriage and nobody cares. They would rather have Church-approved divorce. And the "faithful" sit there and let their marriages get undermined by the man who claims the keys.