Denver Newsroom, Aug 11, 2020 / 01:47 pm (CNA).-
A Sacramento priest excommunicated last week says he stands by his claim that Pope emeritus Benedict XVI is the true pope. In addition to charges of schism, the priest is suspected of misconduct and improper relationships with at least two adult women; he confessed his love to one of them in a video message circulating online.
“I continue to regard Benedict as retaining the Office of Peter, as mysterious as that might be. Therefore, I do not regard Bergoglio as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church,” Fr. Jeremy Leatherby wrote this week in an open letter to the Sacramento diocese.
Leatherby added that although he was already prohibited from public ministry, he had been celebrating Masses in recent months in private homes, offered “in union with Pope Benedict, not with Pope Francis. Many who have joined me hold, like I do, that Benedict remains the one true Pope.”
On Aug. 7, Sacramento’s Bishop Jaime Soto announced that “by his words and actions” Leatherby was “in a state of schism with the Roman Catholic Church.”
Sote declared that the priest had incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. “This means that by his own volition he has separated himself from communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, and other members of the Catholic Church,” the bishop said. He called on Leatherby to “repent of the harm he has inflicted on the Church.”
In a private Aug. 3 letter to Leatherby obtained by CNA, Soto urged the priest to change his ways.
“I have received a number of testimonies reporting that you have offered Mass publicly in violation of my withdrawal of your faculties…In the exercise of these illicit rites…you have preached against the Holy Father and omitted the inclusion of his name and mine from the Eucharistic prayer.”
Soto added that he had heard recordings of the priest’s sermons, and both spoken telephonically and corresponded with the priest about those matters.
“Do not heed the voices or sentiments that have driven you to do this. These are not the fruit of the Holy Spirit. You are wounding the Church you have previously promised to serve. Your actions have placed you and others in grave moral danger. Listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, in whose name I speak with fraternal solicitude.”
After the excommunication was announced, Leatherby, 41, said that he accepts the bishop’s judgment.
“Bishop Soto’s sentence of excommunication against me is consistent with my relationship with Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis), with whom I cannot morally, spiritually or intellectually, in good conscience, align myself,” he wrote.
“I deservedly incur excommunication if Bergoglio is indeed the valid Successor of Peter, and I am guilty of causing great division within the Mystical Body of Christ. However, I could not in good conscience do otherwise….When all is revealed, if I am mistaken, I will humbly repent of my sin and error, for I love the Holy Roman Catholic Church.”
Leatherby has been without an assignment in the diocese since March 2016. At that time, he was removed from ministry at a Sacramento parish, amid allegations that he had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a woman at the parish. He was prohibited from public ministry and his sacramental faculties were withdrawn.
Leatherby’s supporters claim those allegations were trumped up, as retaliation against his family, because the priest’s father, a deacon in the diocese, reported to Church authorities that some priests in the diocese were involved in a homosexual affair.
The Diocese of Sacramento told CNA that claim is “not true.”
“The original matter regarding Fr. Leatherby was triggered by an allegation of a ministerial boundary violation with an adult woman. We have no comment on rumors, theories, or complex, alternate explanations of this matter,” a diocesan spokesman told CNA Aug. 11.
The diocese did not say why the canonical case against Leatherby has taken years to adjudicate.
In August 2018, Sacramento’s vicar general sent a memo to diocesan priests, to address ”speculation” and “the length of time it has taken to resolve this case.”
According to the memo, Bishop Soto formally initiated a formal canonical process — presumably a canonical trial or an administrative penal process — against Leatherby, shortly after he was removed from parish ministry.
That canonical process stalled, the memo said, because “it took longer than we would have liked to assemble a panel of canonical experts independent of the diocese to address this case.”
But the process began moving forward in January 2018, according to the memo. The case “is still continuing, and is in the hands of other ecclesiastical authorities,” Soto said this week.
The diocese has declined requests from CNA for details regarding the status of the case, or the exact canonical crimes of which the priest is accused.
While the diocese has not commented on the allegations against Leatherby, parishioners say the charges have divided the Sacramento parish community, Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Leatherby led as pastor until he was removed in 2016.
Leatherby had garnered a large following at the parish, especially attracting devoutly Catholic families as he worked to renew the parish school. But some parishioners say the priest’s leadership was marked with problems from the beginning.
Becky Jennings was a volunteer and parent at Presentation’s school during Leatherby’s tenure there. She said her family, like a lot of families, was attracted to the school because of the priest’s orthodoxy, dynamism, and pastoral attention to parish and school.
The Jennings trusted Fr. Leatherby, at first. They thought he was a faithful priest, and they were impressed by his courage and his kindness.
“In retrospect, there were a lot of things that should have been red flags. There were cult-like elements with Fr. Leatherby and his family,” Jennings told CNA.
She said that because Jennings was pastorally available and engaged in parish and family lives, a “huge cult of personality formed around him.”
“We would have followed him off the end of the earth and trusted him.”
The priest “used to promote himself as an expert in women’s spirituality and women’s spiritual direction,” Jennings said, and the women he directed were fiercely loyal to him.
In her judgment, Leatherby “formed a ‘harem’ of spiritual directees around him, and used the idea that someone has to be loyal to their spiritual director to abuse and manipulate them,” Jennings said.
The diocese has not identified the woman who alleged misconduct in 2016. But parishioners, talking to one another on social media, have said she was a part of the parish community, a daily communicant, and a former employee of the parish.
When allegations regarding Leatherby emerged in 2016, Jennings said, many people had a hard time believing them, including her family.
It was “devastating,” she said. “We felt like he was the heart and soul of the community.”
But eventually Jennings started hearing stories from parishioners about inappropriate behavior from Leatherby, and those gave her pause. She said she began to believe that “Fr. Leatherby had us all taken in.”
Jennings added that even in his parish leadership, the priest had tried to sow suspicion of outsiders. In early 2016, she said, “there seemed to be growing paranoia that the diocese was out to get our school.” Leatherby, she said, was especially paranoid about losing control of decisions at the school.
Division in the parish is now stark, Jennings said, with some describing Leatherby as “narcissistic” and controlling, while others maintain the priest was persecuted by the Sacramento diocese.
She said she doesn’t believe that Leatherby was removed as an act of retribution. “I think that was invented out of whole cloth,” Jennings told CNA, “or exaggerated.”
She emphasized that in her view, Leatherby’s family members, many of whom have been connected to the parish, are a “pr machine,” trying to promote the idea that the priest is the victim of persecution, “like a mafia,” Jennings added. Leatherby’s defenders, Jennings said, have smeared the reputation of the priest’s alleged victim within the parish community.
Jennings and her family eventually moved away from the parish, she told CNA.
Soto’s letter this week said the excommunication of Leatherby was not related to the 2016 canonical case. That case is not the only instance of suspected misconduct.
Earlier this year, a video circulated online in which Leatherby, who appeared to be driving a car at night, recorded a video message for an unidentified woman, who, according to Leatherby, is not the subject of the 2016 allegation.
“Hey, Baby Doll,” Leatherby says, as he begins the video.
“I love that without mascara that you are still strikingly beautiful. I love that. I love it, like, a lot. A lot a lot. I loved it earlier when I saw you, and you didn’t have it on, and I loved it all night long. ‘Til the present time, and you still don’t have it on, and you’re still gorgeous.”
After discussing an event he had attended that evening, Leatherby says in the video, “I love you, I love you, I love you, you’re my girl. I imagine I’ll still say a ‘good night’ before I really, really, really go to bed, but I love you, even now, before then. Ok, goodnight, I love you.”
Leatherby said this week that he accidentally sent that message to an unintended recipient, and acknowledged the video “appears to some as a confirmation that I must be guilty of every sensational detail that has been alleged about me,” the priest said.
The priest said his behavior in the video was inappropriate, but denied it is evidence of a sexual relationship with the woman.
According to Leatherby’s open letter, the video was intended for “a woman who is a friend and who has assisted me significantly to, literally, survive and persevere these last few years and to fight for my priesthood,” and was recorded “after too much to drink.”
“I spoke in inappropriate ways, unbecoming of my priestly state, even if on leave. Thus, it can be taken totally out of context. I do not have a sexual relationship with that woman,” he said, claiming that those circulating the video “are spreading one side of a story that you don’t know the truth about.”
His letter said that a “handful of detractors who are out to destroy me,” and are using the video irresponsibly. He also claimed that if he were inclined towards sexual immorality, “those pathologies would have been detected at the Saint John Vianney Treatment Center in Downingtown, PA, which I was required to attend for five months after being placed on leave. They dissected every aspect of my life and person.”
In 2018, Leatherby wrote to his former parishioners, whom he reportedly had been instructed by the diocese not to contact.
“At this time I feel called to exercise my spiritual fatherhood to a number of individuals like yourselves, for whom I have been a Pastor, spiritual father, or priest friend/acquaintance at one time or another. I believe that the times that our Lord, through our Blessed Mother, has been preparing the Church and the world for over the course of many years are hastening upon us. She has said that it would be a time of great confusion and darkness, which we have all experienced in ways,” the priest wrote.
“My sense is that the times are going to get progressively darker. There will be a cacophany (sic) of voices pulling us in one way or another. We will be seeking to hear the voice of Christ in the midst of the clamor. Stay close to sources that will offer authentic Catholic teaching,” he added.
This week, Leatherby said he plans to petition for laicization, because he is no longer “in union with the church over which Bergoglio reigns.” The priest said that he will “live out
my priestly promises independently.”
If the priest is laicized, the canonical cases against him would likely conclude without formal resolution. The Sacramento diocese told CNA it will support Leatherby’s petition for laicization.
Through his canon lawyer, Leatherby declined CNA’s interview requests.
[…]
From the “father” who wants women priests, communion for all, lgbtmnop+… Who knew that he’d go to the fringes to push traditional Catholics aside…
This is NO surprise. Cupich has proven through his actions and inactions that He is The power that runs the archdiocese and will do everything he can to eliminate traditional Catholocism in favor of “whatever you want” catholicism.
Thank God the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not subject to approval by priest and elder! Else where would the world-church be??
Meiron,
Actually, the Jewish leadership of Jesus’s day condemned him and did not give their approval of his ministry. God, of course, merely bypassed them.
Does Cupich actually think that he can outfox God?
Steve,
It seems your genius may have actually understood an incoherent post! I attempted irony and failed. Maybe I can explain.
The Father willed Jesus’s sacrifice. God’s will is not subject to approval. Yes, elders and priests played out the parts or roles the Father’s foreknowledge knew they would, and so yes, they did condemn Jesus.
Just so, Cupich’s words are meaningless. He may believe and pride himself on his leadership, but he is nothing more than a pawn to the principalities and powers who he has allowed to use him. The Sacrifice of Jesus and its re-presentation (at Mass) continues to effect, as does God’s will, whether Cupich knows or likes it or not.
God writes straight with crooked lines. And everybody plays a part on God’s chessboard, even those destined (having chosen themselves to be) losers.
NO! Absolutely Cupich cannot outfox God. But he is kept busy and occupied, helping to show to some of us, perhaps, what is clean and what is dirty in the house of the Lord.
Best wishes for a merry Christmas season.
The Austrian adage is that “everything has an end, except for sausage which has two.”
But with the Cupich clique we find there is no end to single-minded duplicity… While the Church in the United States is now committed to restoring “Eucharistic coherence,” the Chicago cardinal appeals to only a “Eucharistic revival”, as if the link between faith and morality is still off the table.
Austrian sausage is one thing, a hot dog is another.
One pope gives, another taketh away. Amazing that a church closing parishes due to diminishing attendance chooses to deliver a smackdown to some of its more faithful members. I guess no more amazing than forcing the faithful to use the NAB. Things continue apace. Continuity.
I guess diversity doesn’t include faithful Catholics who wish to worship God in the same form that has been used by the universal Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.
One can’t help suspecting that Cupich has traded his birthright for a mess of leftist political pottage.
Which is obviously the least savory, most disgusting kind.
Cupich, Roche. Who else?
Spare me.
Faithful Catholics have Christ whom we worship as God and Savior. Churchmen like Cupich come and go; Christ remains.
This is the essence of the ideology (I dare say it’s not theology) that permeates the Catholic Church leadership. Sure, there are a few voices that resist, with little effect, the modernist (liberal, progressive) strongholds. However, it is clear that under this Pope’s leadership, the voices that promote syncretism (“we’re all on our own paths to God regardless of the Gospel of Christ”) and humanism apart from complete surrender to the laws of God and the only King, Jesus (“let’s accept LGBTQx lifestyles, celebrate gay weddings, be led by the UN, bow to Pachamama, etc.) will be endorsed, while all dissent will be censored and silenced.
Jesus OUR LORD AND GOD = The Man-God, is for ever in all perfection = “Heaven will pass away, the earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away!” Mark 13:31. Jesus the Man-God was, is and forever will be the same in the universe! He is now here with us as He was in Person in our HISTORY! We grow up with the LATIN MASS! The change from LATIN TO the current has reduced the SERINITY OF OUR HOLY MASS! Change is not always for the Better! To return to LATIN MASS, we must, first, teach LATIN! The early CHURCH communicataed in Latin accross the globe ~ it was the unifing laungage within our Holy FAITh!
Well the (eminently predictable) lesson from mainstream Protestant denominations, and by the German Catholic church, as cited, is pretty clear – you remove standards, you remove tradition, and the people can’t find a single reason to remain in the pews, nor to believe you have anything useful to teach them. It is not “unifying,” it is not “Eucharistic revival.” It is: ita Missa est, in saecula saeculorum.
Great! This is truly the road to the long overdue complete implementation of the reform of the liturgy set by Vatican II (especially Sacrosanctum Concilium 21, among many others), that in having only one form of the Roman liturgy eventually the liturgy of Trent be gradually extinguished while correcting the great mistake of the theological gymnastics introduced by Benedict XVI in having two forms of the liturgy in Summorum Pontificum.
Where exactly did Vatican II mandate a single form of the Roman Liturgy? Don’t come here to lie. It did no such thing.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” Annibale Bugnini March 1965
In this article, the question is raised about whether what we call “traditional” is really traditional or only goes back to the 17th century: https://wherepeteris.com/walking-on-the-water-traditional-or-truly-traditional/
The liturgy of the “traditional Latin Mass” may go back to St. Damasus, who changed the liturgy from Greek to Latin for the western church, but apparently there are questions about the theology of what is known as the “traditional” Church.
ICYMI – Succinct twitter analysis from Hans Fiene re “elderly ecclesiastical supervisors” . . .
A simple question: Has there ever been any formal condemnation issued by any ecclesial authority against the sort of clown Masses that Pope Francis participated in as both a priest and a prelate in his years in Argentina?
Another simple question: Has there ever been any formal condemnation issued by any ecclesial authority against the sort of Hindu pagan rituals that Cardinal Cupich has welcomed and incorporated into his Masses in Chicago?
For some context and insight about the Archbishop Arthur Roche, author of “the Vatican’s explanatory document” on Traditiones custodes, one can listen to the podcast of Damian Thompson of England, who begins by candidly stating that the Pontiff Francis’ attack against the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a “Cromwellian campaign,” and describes the Moto Proprio Traditiones custodes, signed by the Pontiff Francis, as a document “badly drafted and venomous,” and “so dripping with malice” that most Bishops (unlike the sycophant Blaze Cupich) are intent on ignoring it. A link to Thompson’s podcast is here:
https://spectatorworld.com/radio/why-the-catholic-church-is-facing-chaos-this-christmas/
The Extraordinary Form of the Mass has been explicitly and increasingly permitted by the only three Pontiffs who participated in the Second Vatican Council (Paul VI, participating as the Pope, John Paul II participating as a Bishop, and Benedict XVI participating as a “peritus”).
Vatican II ran for 4 years in four autumn sessions, from October 1962 to December 1965. Pope Paul VI was 68 years old when V2 ended; then-Bishop Wojtyla (the future Pope JP2) was 45 years old when it ended; V2 “peritus” Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope B16) was 38 years of age when it ended. The man who wrote the newly issued “explanatory document” (which claims to assert the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, and its participants above), His Excellency Archbishop Arthur Roche, was 15.
CNA staff relay that the newly issued “explanatory document,” written by Roche, states that the intent of custodes “to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church.”
His Excellency Roche’s statement is incoherent, since everyone knows that the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” does not offer “a single and identical prayer;” instead of a single prayer, it offers four different ones.
His Excellency Roche apparently isn’t sure what happened with the Ordinary Form. Perhaps he should catch up on what has been happening since 1965.
Every time I see a picture of Cardinal Cupich, he radiates “ I am a tough guy, I play hardball, so don’t even think of crossing me”. I am thankful that I do not live in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Cardinal Cupich is my bishop. In my experience, Cupich is very approachable, warm, and friendly on an individual level. He seems to be well liked as an administrator by most priests and deacons because he communicates with them consistently and is responsive to their inquiries even if he doesn’t deliver solutions always to their liking. That said, conservative Catholics like me tend to feel seriously alienated by Cupich for reasons that are obvious. I offer these observations in a spirit of obedience and charity.
Hitter was also very approachable, warm, and friendly. In a spirit of obedience, charity, and truth, I offer this photos:
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-11/sd3kri08_adolf-hitler-jewish-girl-wp_625x300_15_November_18.jpg?im=Resize=(1230,900)
Philip;
Your 12/29 @9:25 – Thanks for that. I too am a conservative Catholic and I would feel, like you “seriously alienated”, if I lived there.
“Obedience and charity” – a combination that is indeed difficult, but not impossible.
Interesting. Back in 2015, when I reported on then-Bishop Cupich’s curious (and nearly disastrous) time in Spokane, WA, I talked to at least two dozen people who have known or worked with Cupich. The picture that emerged was consistent: he was rarely accessible, was usually distant, and was often difficult. But, perhaps Chicago suits him; after all, it’s fairly clear he never wanted to be in Spokane.
Father Paul Kalchik and Father Frank Phillips would likely disagree with your assessment of the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago.
Dear Mr Seitz,
Thank you for offering a comment on your Bishop. Living in California, I have no idea how it is to be in Chicago. You provided a very helpful corrective to my untutored perception, colored by his draconian approach to the Latin Mass. No, I do not attend the pre-Vatican II liturgy, so that is not an axe I have to grind.
But apparently no problems with LBGTQ Masses.
Someone on Twitter posted a terrible example of one of the worst Masses I have ever seen in his diocese of Chicago. Is on YouTube
We don’t want our Bishops to act like clowns.
At seminary in the late 80s itcwas taught that V2 was superceded by the post-conciliar documents. It is important that those responsible for the post-conciliar documents be held accountable. A collective Protestantism was in put into place by Martini. Canonisations of Roncali and Martini without requisit miracles nor explanation for the public domain photos of Roncali in French luciferian Lodge nor the public domain scandal of the ginger actor friend of Martini – has been committed to further damage and destabilise the City in ruins.
I am a Priest of the Eastern Church, and I am not quite sure why Western Church faithful just ignore these renegade prelates who simply have gone against St Pius V’s Quo Primum, placing the Latin liturgy as that which is in perpetuity the rite of the Western Church, the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure why these renegades (and I include Jorge Bergoglio in that group) are doing what they are doing. If their expectorations were just ignored (for surely they violate even Paul’s sciptural admonition”tenete traditiones”) their power would be lost. No one in the Eastern Church would tolerate an individual like Jorge Bergoglio. Now it emerges with ever greater clarity, I am hoping, why the East and West separatd in 1094, the actions of communion and reunification that Paul VI and JP II undertook and sanctioned. Again, I repeat, Pius V’s Quo Primum as an Apostolic Constitution cannot canonicaly be abrogated by any successor precisely because Pius issued it as an Apostotlic Constitution.
I reject all that you write here. First, of all, we are not a “Western Church”. We are the very Church established by our Lord having “Peter” in a special place. Our Lord even changed the Apostle’s name from Simon to Peter to emphasize the importance of his choice. Do you have Latin in your Churches? If you do not accept our Pope – whoever he may be – then do not get involved in our affairs with your bigoted view.
Regarding Pius V’s Quo Primum you have it wrong. Writing for EWTN, Jeffrey Mirus said: “liturgical directives are matters of policy that affect the Faith, but not matters of Faith themselves. There is no guarantee of infallibility for Church policy. This in no way implies that liturgical directives are “unimportant”. They just aren’t matters of faith in and of themselves; they can, in fact, be good, bad or indifferent.” https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-st-pius-v-and-quo-primum-did-the-pope-intend-to-bind-his-successors-from-changing-the-tridentine-mass-1132
Sadly I must disagree with you in toto. Paul VI and JP II formally in writing recognized the Eastern Church (you probaly did not know that). You have a leader, Jorge Bergoglio, who claims Christ did not say “the Lord’s prayer” as it should have been prayed. That simply boggles the mind. No wonder his Jesuit superior told JP II “do not make Bergoglio a Bishop.” Bergoglio has sua sponte closed down the Latin ritual of the holy Mass which a predecessor, St Pius V, said must hold in perpetuity. If this is what you want as a “vicar,” fine with me. Bergoglio’s recent accquesence to the Chines Communists is in stark contrast to how Russian Orthodoxy fought off Stain– and won. The Eastern Church has a glorious history, and nowhere near the scandals the Roman Church has had– and continues to have as I type this reply. You probably also do not know that some in the Eastern Church hold if JP II had lived only a few more years the Eastern and Western Churches would have re-entered the communion that was severed in 1094. It would have been a boon to the Latin Church as the Eastern Church, recognized by all, is far closer in its rituals of prayer and Eucharist to the days of the proto-communities than Rome is today. I recommend you take a look at the Eastern Church’s Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for verification. Let me add here also: as for the claim that Chirst made Peter head of his Church [You are Peter and upon this rock…”}, it is no secret that Christ did not speak Greek– nor did his Apostles. So taking the Greek word “petras,” that the West took to prove Peter was the rock has no basis in Scripture at all. I am sanguine, however, that you already knew this.
What you fail to comprehend is the fact that thee Jesuit superiors did not like the future Pope because he did not go along with some of the views including liberation theology. But, importantly, he was liked by the common people – jus as he is today.
I see that you cannot even get yourself to even call our Pope by his title. So, no wonder your views are just as skewed.
Nazareth, I believe, was just a
Pope Francis did not surrender to nthe Chinese. He signed a deal that was many years in the making, and involved three Popes. But what you seem ignorant of is that that deal was just one part of our great Pope’s strategy. Along with the deal, he asked the global Church to pray for our brothers and sisters in China, and then placed China under the protection of our Lady. One does not always have to fight or resist to win a battle.
Nazareth, I believe, Nazareth, was a short walk from Sepphoris – a town of Greek speaking people. So, he and Joseph, being tradespeople, would have done some business with these people and so would have known Greek. In any case, the people would have mingled. Anyway, I will go with what scripture tells me and not what your narrow, bigoted view suggwests.
Dear Rev. Chryostomos,
Reading beyond prior replies to you, one observes that the views of one protesting CWR poster do not represent the vast majority of others. Contentious, error-filled, prejudicial thoughts are not non-charitable and do dishonor to the name of ‘Christian.’ More postings at CWR represent less modernist, more thoughtful, decidedly non-pope-idolatrous Catholics of the Western Church.
Thank God the Liturgy of the Eastern Church shows reverence to the Lord; the NOM of the Western Church has much to learn by its example.
Best regards.
No doubt that there are some like you who will say stuff like that. There are less Pope-haters in the Catholic Church than those who accept the position and dignity of that position.
Thanks to Rev. Chrysostomos.
Good question. Why don’t we just ignore the lunacy coming from the Vatican? I don’t know enough (anything really) about the cause of the split between the East and West. Or about Pius V. More, please.
Perhaps the schism of the Eastern Church was God’s permissive plan to rescue His Church post-Politicoglio? It is noteworthy that the Eastern Church now possesses part of the relics of St Peter… Should St Peter’s succumb to “Twin Tower Ground Zero Syndrome”, the future is secured. For the widely silenced Archbishop Lenga, the realisation of the Fatima prophesy for Rome is within the next 2 years. Tourists wanting a final view of St Peter’s Basilica should get the hell out of there before October 13?
While you are dreaming, Mike, our Lord’s Church moves on – as it always has. There is no salvation outside this Church.
The present renewal is with the TLM. They are well-attended and display heart-felt communion. It is about holiness, not duty. CC might be a Kantian scholar.
Cupich follows his master like an obedient dog and he always will.
The Popes attacks on the Latin Mass are incomprehensible to any rational person.
In western society Christianity is in steep decline and the Latin Mass communities are one group that buck that trend. Are they perfect? No. But why go into bat against them so malevolently. As I say it’s incomprehensible.
Is the Pope a Pathological Narcissist? That is someone who is mentally ill and who is energised by the total destruction of small and vulnerable groups and individuals around him. Who know but the signs seem to be there.
So much of the commentary about his attacks on the Latin Mass skirt round the seemingly unanswerable question. Why on earth would the Pope of all people act in this way?
Is it that the answers to that question are too frightening for faithful Catholics to face?
The late Fr amorth stated that the pre conciliar sacramentals and rites liberated souls sooner and quicker because ecclesiastical Latin had more power behind. So why do these prelates hate it? Eastern Rite: your next!!!
Is that so? Wow! I was always believed that it was the powerful name of Jesus – in whatever language – that made the demons flee.
Cardinal Robert Sarah once stated that opposition and hostility to the Mass of Ages comes from the Evil One, who seeks our downfall. Considering the type of prelates who despise the TLM and seek to punish and restrict it, I would say his Eminence was spot on.