A Response to a letter from Kelly Scoles

[My apologies to our non-Catholic readers for this religious screed. I just had to answer this letter.]

Hello Kelly,

Beware that "pesky curiosity". Remember, it did that cat no good.

Do you think I pontificate too much? I am also a graduate of Catholic grade school, high school, and university (when USF still had a whiff of traditional Jesuit presence.) Since this discussion involves the Vatican (political structure) more than the faith itself, we're talking about the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious (sisters and brothers - the clergy) and laity. This is ancient hierarchy that has "recently" disappeared.

I have not, as you claim, been silent on Church affairs. I have always had a keen interest in religious issues. But, as I've said, this is not a religious paper. I have nevertheless constantly voiced my strong objection to America's pro-abortion license, and have been actively Prolife since Roe v. Wade in 1973, many millions of souls ago. My conscience and ethics have been primarily informed by the Church for 80 years. I condemned Cardinal Mahony for being a heretic, apostate, and schismatic, (which status automatically excommunicates) without judicial pronouncements. His outrageous protection of pedophiles over the years merits harsh condemnation. I recall meeting him one day when he landed his small Bell helicopter in Fillmore's St. Francis Church parking lot. He was an arrogant Modernist then, with a pilot's license. Today he seems to have disappeared under comfortable prelate penumbras. I would have no trouble writing a tome on the sins of the archdiocese, but this is neither the time nor the place. Money, since the time of Judas, has been a persistent inducement to Church corruptions - for that matter, of all the churches.

If, as you claim, Pope Francis "appears to be trying to shed a light on the failures and excesses of the Church, etc.", he's using a mighty small bulb. I don't understand your allusion to disgraced former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. After Francis rescued McCarrick from Pope Benedict XV1's "Devil's Island-type” punishment, he provided a plumb Vatican job for him - only later did he have to kick McCarrick out of the nest completely. The stench of scandal got to be too much even for Francis' nostrils. Who can argue with the conclusion that McCarrick was an evil prelate regularly promoted through the ranks for two generations by other equally evil prelates who had lost their faith?

You seem to be a Modernist, Kelly, as all the "Novus Ordo" folks are today. For you, apparently, this "modern era" is all about social justice, climate change, people-centered sing-alongs, green proposals, clown Masses, etc. Some good stuff there (minus the clowns), but the traditional Catholic Church is, and always has been, entirely Christ-centered, in the pursuit of individual salvation, calling to others for the same. This is the crux (Modernism) of the present, bitter conflict between traditionalist Catholics and Modernist "Novus Ordo" (new Mass) believers. On the one hand many Traditionalists believe Pope Francis, due to his many formal heretical pronouncements concerning dogmatic facts taught by the Church for 2,000 years, is not a valid Pope. Furthermore, his alleged status as a schismatic and apostate, precludes him from a valid election from the start. From a Traditionalist point of view it creates a state of "sedevacantism" or no pope on the Chair of Peter. So, some Traditionalists await a validly elected pope. It's a question (a crisis) of valid authority, and even Modernist bishops no longer obey Pope Francis.

The Catholic Church today has not seen such confusion in many centuries. This conflict was precipitated by the devastating Second Vatican Council which changed dogmatic traditions. There is the Vatican, which is basically political, and the Church itself, which is spiritual and never-changing. Maybe Constantine the Great, Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, is responsible. In 313, he declared religious tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire (the whole known world at the time). In 325 he called the First council of Nicaea, which gave us the statement of Christian belief known as the Nicene Creed. But he also deeded civil-political power to the Church which it has always been loath to forego. We would be far better off giving-back civil authority (the Vatican is a sovereign country as well as the "Holy See") and returning to pre 313 Catholicism. Those who conspired to initiate Vatican II (Pope John XX111) et al, had a huge New World Order church in mind, all inclusive. They didn't intend to destroy the Church, they wanted to use it, without all that religious stuff. They have been about 80-percent sucessful.

Your final paragraph puzzles me, Kelly. Francis must resign for the above-mentioned reasons. Ironically, however, "Sometimes, you say, he sounds like...a Christian liberal." That may be the beginning of his problems - he's a liberal! He's a liberal doing what religious liberals love to do, ignoring dogma (foundational church law) while coddling heretics, schematics, and criminals, as the bishops are on a lark of their own, creating a New-World church. So the Church is ending-up with a plethora of independent popelets answering only to themselves. "Pope" Francis is a general without troops. The question remains: is there any valid authority remaining in the Catholic Church to correct the monstrous dogmatic errors of Vatican II?

I always enjoy arguing with you, Kelly. But I would appreciate you being more accurate when alleging my beliefs.