Good Catholics, Bad Bishops and Popes: Part I

Frank - church at night

By: Unknown Centurion

We’ve always had bad bishops and popes. In our nearly two-thousand-year history, the Chair of Peter has been occupied by some of the worst sinners and most worldly scoundrels. We’ve also had some good runs of consecutive saintly pontiffs, even recently, but inevitably as a fallen race in a fallen world, those paragon pontificates are replaced by less prayerful and less perfect popes. While not directly stating where we might be on the spectrum of sinful to saintly popes and bishops, I do wish to list some of the signs of the times and address what a good Catholic is to do when a Bishop or a Pope is more heterodox, or even heretical, than holy.

Signs of the Times

Jesus admonished us to interpret the signs of the times (Matthew 24:3-31; Luke 12:54-59), especially those souls He created for the latter days of trial and tribulation. Scripture tells us of times when evil will be called good and good will be called evil (Isaiah 5:20). And St. Paul describes a time when “a strong delusion” will cause many to believe the lie and not believe the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:11). In his first letter to Timothy, he warns that in the latter times, many will leave the faith, following doctrines of devils, speaking lies, and refusing to marry or to eat meat (1 Timothy 4:1-4).

Paul later writes to Timothy again about the perilous latter days when men of the cloth will be lovers of self, not of God, men with unnatural affection, arrogant, abusive men, who are despisers of those who are good, men who hold to the form of religion, but don’t believe in the power of it. (2 Timothy 3:1-5). Sound kinda familiar? His advice to those subject to such religious leaders is to “avoid them” for they will only be successful with the weak, those burdened with sins or swayed by emotions (2 Timothy 3:5-7). The “counterfeit faith” of such corrupt-minded men who oppose the truth and established religious authority will be exposed as folly for all to see. (2 Timothy 3:8,9). The Church’s greatest evangelist’s advice for those subject to such selfish, sodomic, clerics can be summed up as “avoid and expose”.

Similarly, the Catechism speaks of a latter-day Passion of the Church, before the second coming of Christ. This Passion of the Body of Christ, like the original Passion of Christ, will be an inside job, where those successors of the apostles would, like their spiritual forefathers, cower, abandon, deny, and betray Jesus. This painful passion in the latter times would lead to a great apostasy, also prophesied, where few Catholics earnestly practice their faith and many souls once squarely in the camp of Christ, are lost to the powers of darkness. Whether these prophecies of Scripture are being fulfilled in our time or will be completed in five or five hundred years is not for us to know with certainty.

Nevertheless, we must not forget that we are in the midst of a spiritual war, the victories and defeats of which in the unseen realm, influence and affect the state of the visible world, for good or for ill. Satan, evil and intelligent creature, is the leader of these armies of darkness with allies and those under his influence in the material world, many of whom don’t realize they are deceived and do his bidding. As prophecies of Pope Leo XIII and Fatima have revealed, Satan was or will be given additional power for a period of time, perhaps a century, with some mystics and those with spiritual acuity believing his time may now come to an end. This would explain the frenzied and ferocious pace of gains he has made in all areas of life, infiltrating the most influential secular institutions and even those entities which have been established to oppose him, such as the Church.

Satan’s Target: The Church

In addition to his incomprehensible victories in our once-Christian culture, an intelligent commander would certainly include infiltrating the ranks of his most formidable enemy, corrupting the priesthood through malicious malformation, systemic sodomy, Eucharistic apathy, and liturgical laxity, thereby creating an interconnected web of enemies within, living duplicitous double lives of predation, and the pursuit of power and pleasure. Such a strategy would likely include the promotion of his compromised and complicit double agents to the rank of bishop, worldly men without chests and without a prayer life, who project false piety, demand fealty, ignore the flock, sideline orthodox and outspoken priests, and rebrand episcopal cowardice as collegiality, as they preside over the mismanaged decline of the Church Christ built.

If the Enemy were ever able to orchestrate a secret campaign to elect a Supreme Pontiff from among the bad bishops and compromised cardinals, he could drive away its most fervent believers and damage, demolish, and remake the divine/human Body of Christ into a universal, secular NGO according to the revolutionary spirit of the world and its Prince.

With such a malevolent Manchurian candidate in charge of the universal Church, he would have a bully pulpit to bully the most faithful followers into submission or schism, to create catechetical chaos and confusion, to focus on the here and now and ignore the hereafter, and to profane, desacralize and suppress the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the source of the Church’s power and the restrainer against evil in the world.

This willing or unwitting enemy at the top likely would not come out of the box swinging so as not to expose himself, but hide his anger and heresy behind a false facade of mercy and humility. He wouldn’t openly advocate heresy, which the Holy Spirit would guard against, but begin with ambiguities and loose language open to interpretation which the enemies of the Church could easily manipulate. Because he would never challenge the post-Christian culture, he would be loved by the world (John 15:18) as he gradually reshaped the Church in a more worldly fashion. His plan could likely include slowly removing and retiring the most orthodox defenders of the faith, replacing them with cowards, the compromised, sycophants, and like-minded leftists, even bestowing upon the unseen mafia which elected him greater power and influence.

As his time grew short, and that of his preferred pope, Satan’s outright attacks and covert undermining of the Church’s teaching and tradition would increase in speed and severity, deeply and diabolically dividing and disfiguring the Body of Christ. The Evil One would undoubtedly seek to ban the timeless, traditional Latin Mass forcing all to attend a banal, commonplace, counterfeit, which has removed the majority of prayers and substituted its supernatural, sacrificial nature with a communal-centric meal.

Such an agent of Satan would be the unknown architect of the great apostasy with one in ten self-proclaimed Catholics even bothering to attend Mass in person on Sundays, without lifting a finger to bring the lost sheep back, or even lifting the dispensation which would encourage their return. He would demonize and isolate those who sincerely sought to do God’s will, while kowtowing and catering to the least-common-denominator of sinners in a lower the bar Catholicism which offers little and demands less, leaving people in their sins though believing they are saved. Then with a watered-down Mass and so few who attend it, His power and influence would increase, as the Church’s power derived from full, active, conscious participation in the Mass decreased.

While such a scenario may seem far-fetched to some, and too close to home to others, what is a good Catholic to do in times such as those in the above hypothetical, when most of the universal Church wake up to find that they are indeed “more Catholic than the Pope.”

Do they remain oblivious to and unaware of the supernatural reality that the smoke of Satan has indeed entered the highest levels of the Church, as Pope Paul VI warned? Do they blindly obey the grave sinner in white who, knowingly or not, is doing untold damage to the sacred institution and driving souls into hell like snowflakes? Or do they resist, mount a faithful defense of the faith, to protect the one true Church and the souls for which she is responsible? Or is there an official mechanism in the Church or under canon law, to challenge them on any and all grounds from whether they are authorized, valid, legal, binding, and consistent with precedent, engaging bishops, canonists, tribunals, and even the Apostolic Signatura to debate and decide, rather than cave in and comply, as most of the Church did in the political realm?

If we truly know our Faith, remain in a state of grace, and prayerfully discern what we should and should not do, following our well-formed, clear consciences, we will be blameless before the Lord, even in outward acts of resistance or disobedience to episcopal enforcement of papal restrictions on the full practice of the Faith. How would these bishops, who tout the primacy of even a malformed, clouded, conscience as a convenient excuse for their failure to correct those who call themselves Catholic but fail to follow Church teaching, react when we ignore and marginalize them, citing our well-formed consciences as the reasons we will never comply with their schemes to fundamentally transform the Church?

When it is the orthodox who refuse to comply not the heterodox and when they are the ones who disobeyed not the Catechism, will their tune change from conscience is king to you must obey? It seems the only time they enforce anything it’s against the most orthodox among us. And if we are persecuted, and our persecutors are antichristian popes and cowardly, compromised, and complicit bishops, we must persevere, bearing our persecutions with joy, offering it up, and remaining faithful to Christ, as did the Apostolic Church, while secretly practicing the faith whenever possible, even in home churches and hidden catacombs.

read Part II tomorrow.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

17 thoughts on “Good Catholics, Bad Bishops and Popes: Part I”

  1. Pingback: Who and What Should We Trust? - Catholic Stand

  2. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  3. With all of the obfuscation, deceit and disinformation in this world, unknown centurion yet again provides wisdom and clarity offering a straight-talk perspective on the losses we are sustaining on the spiritual battlefield. I look forward to Part II of this article as well as his upcoming book: Rise of the Centurion: Reclamation of a Mystical, Masculine, Theology.

  4. Unknown Centurion, think about it: there are those who do the “pronoun thing,” and those who don’t. Those who don’t don’t get to make any statement, like those who do the “pronoun thing” get to do. So, following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, i.e. that those in power cannot effectively respond to ridicule, I often sign, in reply to a “pronoun thing” person: Guy, Texas (Moe/Lucy/Groucho). If the “pronoun thing” truly reflects reality, and if the ‘pronoun thing” people have real principles that apply equally to everyone, there is no way they can try to stifle me or say that I cannot identify as Lucy. Or that tomorrow I can’t change and self ID in the morning as Moe and in the rest of the day as Groucho. Thanks for your fine article. Guy, Texas (God’s Child)

  5. Let us pray for the Church every day at Mass and when we pray the Rosary. Whenever and wherever let us pray for the Church and our Pope. The Church cannot err in what she teaches in matters of Faith and Morals. In these times it is good to remember the words from holy Scripture – let us be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
    I don’t mind that the author of this article wishes to remain anonymous – at least for now.
    Prudence.

  6. I don’t appreciate the idea of an anonymous ‘guest contributor.’ If the author, or the Catholic Stand, desires the author be unknown, then please don’t publish.
    Kevin

    1. Dear Catholic Stand, I really do appreciate it when you exercise your editorial discretion to publish an article anonymously. Sometimes it MUST be done. This guest contributor only says 2+2=4, no untruths. But, as is sometimes the case, were she or he to provide identity information, that could mean the end of a job, the end of a career, and consequences for friends and relatives – not to mention real, personal threats [yes, once what I wrote prompted threats of assault and rape]. As you also well know, very few commenters ever publish their identity or give full information about themselves or how to contact them or their employers – nor would you, most probably, want commenters to do so. So, thank you, and thank you for all you do. Guy, Texas

    2. Unknown Centurion

      The sole reason for the pseudonym is that this is the name under which my upcoming book, Rise of the Centurion: Reclamation of a Mystical, Masculine, Theology, will be published. I did not do so out of caution or cowardice, but in an act of humility (which I need), and as an honest acknowledgement that any insights and inspirations therein are not from me. I believe I am to “remain hidden”, at least until I hear otherwise. And Guy, I do appreciate the defense, but I have no fear of repercussions, and yes I am a him, though I definitely don’t do the pronoun thing.

  7. an ordinary papist

    My, my, someone certainly woke up on the wrong side of life today. I think Timothy would
    have greatly benefited from a good vegan restaurant.

  8. To believe that a corrupt priest cannot give sacraments is a heresy known as Donatism. This article skirts close to it. You can’t “avoid” going to Mass because you don’t like what the priest, or bishop, or Pope is doing. You have to go. You certainly can’t hold private Masses in homes.

    And a communal meal, where the priest is speaking not in Latin but in the vernacular, and is facing the congregation — that doesn’t sound like Satan. It sounds like Jesus.

    1. All I can say is THANK YOU! I couldn’t formulate a reply to this one. In fact, I skimmed over most of it. You and I have interacted before. And so I say again, THANK YOU!

    2. Unknown Centurion

      Crisis,

      We’ve interacted before, as have most people who have written for Catholic Stand. Even (or perhaps especially) when there is nothing written which contradicts Catholic teaching, you seem to try to misinterpret it, as you did here, to say what you wish it did say so that it might violate your preferred version of the faith. I’m not a Donatist, though I do love a good chocolate cake donut. I know that all sacraments and Masses can be valid and licit, regardless of the sinfulness of the deacon, priest, or bishop administering, witnessing, or celebrating, respectively. And as a daily Communicant, I would never suggest anyone avoid participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for any reason, especially something as shallow and insignificant as not liking a particular priest or bishop. If I stated or seemed to imply that in Part I of this post please let me know, and I will apologize and retract it.

      Perhaps though, this gets to the heart of our apparent disagreement: I know that Mass is the the re-presentation of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, where we unite our sacrifices to the perfect sacrifice of Christ as the only acceptable offering and most pleasing act of worship, while you seem to view it as merely a “communal meal” focused on the interaction between the congregation and the presider. Perhaps Part II may clarify your critical concerns, that, to me, at least, my faith is not dependent upon, or in any way related to the sanctity (or sinfulness) of the Church’s leaders, and I will fully and frequently practice and participate in the treasury of graces Christ died in order to give her regardless of who’s in charge of a particular parish, diocese, or the universal Church. And if in the near or distant future, the Church or State makes that impossible for us, then yes, gathering in homes to carry out the New Covenant and Final Command of Christ may be the only option, as did the Apostolic Church for the first few hundred years.

  9. Been thinking and working on “church governance” lately, since September actually, and I’m intrigued that your hinting at the same. I’ve really been trying to learn what actual recourse we have as the laity when the clergy are clearly not following what has been revealed to us all in Scripture. Since Vatican II they love to say that we should be more involved, but when that includes exposing and working to correct their own errors, sins, and short comings then they pull rank and play the authority card. If you know any more about that, what we can do, then please pass it on. Most of what I get is a form of cancelling – silence and/or soft shunning.

    In Christ,
    Andrew

    1. Read Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law. And learn, learn, learn about the crimes and predations and perversions of 1000s of ordained priests and bishops and cardinals, who have 10,000s of victims. And know: it is Jesus’s Church, and He will never abandon it or us. Guy, Texas

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.