[Source]
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
[Source]
1) S. Jetchick (2020-April-19)
2) B. McCaffree (2020-April-20)
3) S. Jetchick (2020-April-20)
4) B. McCaffree (2020-April-21)
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 8:54 PM To: Brother Benedict Subject: Re: vocation [Previous e-mails, and the beginning of this one, deleted because not related to Jorge Mario Bergoglio] >> regarding -- in my 'umble opinion -- one >> opportunity to grow in charity in one of your >> positions. This will be a matter of some debate, >> I suspect; but I shall simply share my path to >> peace over Pope Francis. I would be deeply grateful if somebody helped me understand how Jorge Mario Bergoglio could really be the Pope, and how that could somehow be made to line up with the promises of Christ: "... and the gates of Hell will not prevail...". Do realize if you step into that debate, I have to post your name, address, etc., along with your e-mails related to that topic, on my web site. Since it is the gravest of matters, having an effect on all Catholics, it's not a debate that can happen in a dark corner (and here, I'd love to be able to quote in Latin Saint Thomas Aquinas when he says roughly the same thing). Yes, have a Blessed Divine Mercy Sunday! SJJ
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Profound Judgment requires Profound Humility Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:49:04 +0200 From: Brother Benedict To: 'Stefan Jetchick' My dear brother in Christ, Stefan, I am a cloistered and contemplative monk. Although I am a priest and a religious, I am not a member of the hierarchy. Monks are liminal to the Church by ancient custom and design. Few people even know I exist. My role is to live a hidden life, offering prayer and penance for my own sins and for other poor souls (living in the world or in Purgatory), especially for troubled and disobedient priests and bishops. As a man under obedience, I cannot publish without permission of my superiors. As a rule I do not engage in correspondence, but I have reached out to you upon the prompting of the Holy Spirit to support your vocation. You are so bright (and witty) and clearly have both so much love for the Church and every sign of a vocation. I have promised to pray with you and to offer Mass for you. But I am, nonetheless, writing you to challenge you to reflect on one position you have taken, that in my view is disedifying and stands between you and the realization of your vocation. I referred to our different positions as debatable, not to throw down the gauntlet but rather to invite you to reflect further on that one issue of your relationship with the Pope. Upon your invitation, I shall address that issue, not just primarily on its merits, but also on how such judgments touch the soul. I hope you will forgive me for being so bold. Because this missive will meander so, I have added some headings. Knowing in Faith: First, as to 'knowing in faith,' your point as to belief is well taken. But the fathers make much of 'knowing in faith' in commentaries on Hebrews 11.1 seeing faith as the certain assurance regarding 'things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' St. Peter invites us to 'grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:18), thus we can declare with Philippians 3: 'I want to know Christ.' Think too of St. Irenaeus: 'Scio Cui credidi.' So in using that phrase I am inviting you to believe with confidence or assurance. Faith in the Efficacy of Prayer: Secondly, as to what one asks for in faith, I understand and laud your prayers for bishops to be truly Catholic. God here, however, is bound by His respect for the freedom He has given each human. I don't believe for a moment that your prayers have gone unanswered. In answer to your prayer, you can be confident that God has offered the grace of conversion to lackluster bishops, but He does not force their hands. That is perhaps why Chrysostom said that hell is paved with bishops' skulls (Hom III Acts 1:12)! This is not new in the Church; Savonarola wryly longed for the days of yore, when 'chalices were made of wood and bishops of gold.' During Arian times, the majority of bishops were heretics. Should we expect our own times to be so different? Ambition discolors so many vocations! However, when a man asks in faith to know God's will and to act upon it, he is asking for his own grace of conversion. He does so with the moral assurance that such grace will be granted to him by the God who gives abundantly (see James 1:5). Charity for the Person of the Pope: Thirdly, I suggested to you in my last note that you might be able to grow in charity toward Pope Francis, and that I would offer my own experience in that regard. This begs the question: Have you really exhausted the charity you owe Jorge Bergolio? Is it possible that you could work to see more good in him, in his homilies, in his prayers, in his faith? Do you love him as God loves him? The answer is, of course, that you cannot - as you are not yet divine, but that does not take you off the hook regarding Christ's command that you love him. I have had to work to grow in my love for the Pope. And I can now say I do love him and see much good in him. I pray for him daily, just as you do, with sincerity, filial devotion and love. Difficult Positions: Yet I understand: you are not alone in being flummoxed by the language of his exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Some great minds in the Church were signatories to the Correctio filialis - including my favorite living theologian. Some holy souls offered the dubia. And frankly, if the interpretations of the Argentinian, Maltese and German bishops of AL is correct, then that teaching is contrary to the teaching of Christ. Nonetheless, you have a very good explanation of the hermeneutic of continuity on your website. For Catholics the source and font is always the teaching of our Lord in the unbroken Magisterium. Every official statement of every pope must be viewed in line with the hermeneutic of continuity. We have the duty in conscience to view papal and conciliar teaching in this light. Judging Justly: I am well aware too that we have the duty to rebuke even prelates if the faith were endangered (ST II,II, q. 33). But in condemning deviations and concrete errors, have you not gone way beyond the signers of the Correctio filialis or the authors of the dubia? Despite our Vatican I assurances that the Petrine Office will always be occupied, have you not constructively become a sede vacantist? I have clerical friends on the right and left who say they are loyal to the Pope but don't obey him. I have watched others jump on the pretexts of the faulty but valid resignation of the saintly Benedict XVI or the profoundly negative influence of the St. Gallen Mafia (about which there is much talk but little evidence, especially sufficient evidence of violation of UDG 82) to seek to 'undo' Pope Francis' election. I have seen others engage in constructive excommunication. For this they must see the errors of AL in its worst light and determine that it is formal heresy. Contrarily we are required to look at papal pronouncements in their best light, and since, in the technical meaning of the words, the good faith is of Pope Francis is manifestly present, that would make any heresy contained therein only material at best. Elsewhere you condemn vague accusations without formal investigation by competent authority (Williamson). Surely a sitting pope should be afforded the same protections. So on its face the standards set forth by Canons 194 and 1364 have not been met. But neither of us are canonists; should not such determinations be left to them? Bishop Schneider has said that modern popes speak too much. It is true. The Acta Sanctae Sedis series in our library has some 250 volumes - one for the first thousand years of pronouncements and the remaining 249 for the last thousand years. Although humorous, making too much of ex aero statements amounts to papalotry. Christ continues to keep His Church free from error but not from banality, sin or stupidity. You will have noted that popular accounts of Pope Francis' positions on, for example, homosexual sexual activity, have simply been wrong, as later statements have clarified. So, as you can see, I am not functioning as an apologist; I simply do not see as credible all the hoops that people are jumping through in claiming that Pope Francis is not Pope Francis. It is my position that Pope Francis was validly elected and that he holds the Petrine Office today. In that I differ from you. I can continue praying 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco' without having to pretend that the prayer does not mean what it says it does. The Price of Judgmentalism: I really do not know if the word 'judgmentalism' exists; let us just say it means being excessively judgmental. I am not decrying judgment, of course: our ability to judge is part of our rationality and is a gift from God. Adam sought to judge what was right and wrong without reference to the divine, and thus place himself in the position of God. In my experience, excessive judgment is a drug, and, as with any drug, the more one indulges in it, the more severe judgments one needs to get the same satisfaction. I do not know your soul, and only you and God can answer this question, but do you not find yourself making more and more extreme judgments over time, backing yourself in a moral corner? In taking the position that Pope Francis was either not validly elected or that he dismissed himself from office by embracing heresy, look to the company you are keeping. That is not the stance of the cardinals and the bishops you have stated that you so admire. The company you are not keeping is that of the Bishop of Rome. What Catholic would want to be in that position? Living Tradition and Faith via Men: I am deeply fond of the fathers (I read little but the fathers and the Scriptures). You will no doubt be quite familiar with this text from Ag. Heresies, III: That tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. .. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. [Emphasis mine] Pope Benedict said that '"Tradition" is indeed never a simple and anonymous handing on of teaching, but is linked to a person, is a living word that has its concrete reality in faith' (Ratzinger, Essay in God's Word, p. 23). That of course makes Tradition both rich and messy. I hope in that regard my attachment to Rome does not seem too simplistic to you. I have had to come to this position through conversion. I have a few more decades under my belt than you. I came of age in the 60s and 70s and imbibed deeply of the shallow theology of that lamentable period. I listened to too many well-meaning but error-filled homilies. I confess in confidence that I embraced the sin of Adam, thinking with untrammeled pride that the Magisterium would someday come around to more enlightened positions on remarriage, women priests and gay marriage. I embraced all the mush-headed wrongs that you decried in the statements of the Canadian religious superiors' 'we regret.' I was saved from my grave errors by tough confessors, doses of good theology and liturgy, and the good example of strong abbots. I confronted my own sin. I deeply regret my pride and my sins, and I am humbled by them to this day. It is for those reasons that I have come to a somewhat jaundiced view of judgments divorced from humility. Profound judgments require profound humility. Because I flew too close to the sun (to mix my metaphors), perhaps it has made me sensitive to that perception of your writing regarding the very existence of the papacy of Pope Francis. Because you show clear signs of a priestly vocation (my job for many years was judging such things), I worry that with your position you would not be able to make the promise of obedience required of deacons and priests. Pope St. John Paul said: "Obedience can sometimes be difficult, particularly when different opinions clash. However, obedience was Jesus' fundamental attitude to sacrificing himself, and it bore fruit in the salvation the whole world has received" (General Audience Aug. 25, 1993). I know you are disappointed by many of Pope Francis' statements - none more so than those in AL. But as a Catholic you owe him obedience in all things legitimate. Could you now, if you were a priest utter the words of the Roman Canon with their unambiguous meaning -- 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco'? I believe your stance is an impediment to your vocation. Certainly even the most orthodox of bishops would regard it as such. Nothing I have said in this letter is particularly original. Far better minds than mine have opined at length on all of these subjects. I write simply to ask: Will you not perhaps then give some further thought to your papal stance, perhaps in humility standing with the bishops and cardinals you admire in their more nuanced view of Pope Francis' papacy? Your website is brimming with so much good! I humbly offer you my opinion that your position on Pope Francis takes away from the otherwise unmitigated good you are offering to the Church. Please forgive me if I have offended you in any of my statements or if I have misunderstood or misconstrued any of your positions. Ultimately I have sure faith that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Tomorrow is the Feast of Saint Ambrose and I shall be offering Mass for you and your intentions. Sincerely yours in the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Father Benedict
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Profound Judgment requires Profound Humility Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:17:21 -0400 From: Stefan Jetchick To: Brother Benedict Hello again Father McCaffree, >> As a man under obedience, I >> cannot publish without permission of my superiors. I tried to make my disclaimer as clear as I could at the end of my previous e-mail... But your superiors will no doubt forgive you, since you're obviously trying to help a poor lost soul. >> But I am, nonetheless, writing you to >> challenge you to reflect on one position you have >> taken, that in my view is disedifying Trust me, I hate my position. I've spent most of my adult life defending the Pope, telling people "Ubi est Petrus, ibi est Ecclesia", quoting official documents of the Magisterium, etc. I would almost wash my mouth with soap and water after having said the bad word: "Sedevacantist". So now, I find myself in a very unpleasant situation, and I hate it. So I will appreciate any wiggle room you could give me, such that I could claim Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the Pope, while still keeping the Catholic Faith I want to die with. >> Because this missive will meander so, I have >> added some headings. I need to remember that line! My articles tend to meander far more than yours, so I should add more headings! >> Knowing in Faith: >> First, as to 'knowing in faith,' [...] I am >> inviting you to believe with confidence >> or assurance. Despite reading it twice, and slowly, I could find nothing to disagree with, under that whole heading. >> Chrysostom said that hell is paved with >> bishops' skulls (Hom III Acts 1:12)! I was delighted when you gave the reference! I've been looking for years for the origin of that quote! But I've just read "Hom III Acts 1:12", and it's not there. Google turned up: "The origin of the actual quote is obscure, but several theories abound. The most interesting are that the flourishing rhetoric of St. Chrysostom and Dantean imagery came together in the Middle Ages or that the quote was actually a misrepresentation of Chrysostom's words from the protestant leader John Wesley." >> Savonarola wryly longed for the >> days of yore, when 'chalices were made of wood and >> bishops of gold.' I like that one too! So, here again, after reading the heading "Faith in the Efficacy of Prayer:", I have found nothing to disagree with. >> Thirdly, I suggested to you in my last note >> that you might be able to grow in charity toward >> [Jorge Mario Bergolio] I'm sure I could. I have a stone instead of a heart. If I actually loved my neighbor, wouldn't I just learn medicine and go work for free as a doctor in the Third World? Why do I just stay here behind my keyboard instead of doing something positive for Mankind? And Jorge Mario Bergolio, whether he is the current Pope or not, needs prayers and love. I could sure increase my charity for him (since I could increase my charity for anybody). >> Have you really exhausted the charity you >> owe Jorge Bergolio? Is it possible that you could >> work to see more good in him, in his homilies, in >> his prayers, in his faith? I'd love to try, but he's doing his darnest to prevent me. >> I pray for him daily, just as you do, with >> sincerity, filial devotion and love. I have ceased to pray for him as Pope. I should continue to pray for him as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. >> Difficult Positions: >> Yet I understand: you are not alone in being >> flummoxed by the language of his exhortation >> Amoris Laetitia. Nego. I am not "flummoxed" (Merriam-Webster says: "confused"). And no, my warhorse is not Amoris Laetitia, but his response to the Dubia. Having some people misunderstand a document you signed is one thing. Taking a dump on four Cardinals who politely ask for a doctrinal clarification is an entirely other thing. >> Some great minds in the Church were >> signatories to the Correctio filialis - including >> my favorite living theologian. Some holy souls >> offered the dubia. And frankly, if the >> interpretations of the Argentinian, Maltese and >> German bishops of AL is correct, then that teaching >> is contrary to the teaching of Christ. So... >> you have a very good explanation of the hermeneutic >> of continuity on your website. You should send an Open Letter to Bergoglio telling him that! He needs it badly, according to you too! ;-) >> Every official >> statement of every pope must be viewed in line with >> the hermeneutic of continuity. Yes, if he is the Pope, and not an impostor. Bergoglio has clarified and officialized his heretical teachings. No matter how much lipstick of "hermeneutic of continuity" you lather on the pig of 2+2=5, it won't work. >> Judging Justly: >> I am well aware too that we have the >> duty to rebuke even prelates if the faith were >> endangered (ST II,II, q. 33). OK. >> have you not gone >> way beyond the signers of the Correctio filialis or >> the authors of the dubia? Maybe. I've never met any of them, so I don't know up to what point their public sayings correspond to their private positions. I know priests in this Province who privately say all Quebec Bishops have lost the Catholic Faith, but who carefully avoid saying that in public. I've never met a member of the "catholic" clergy who was not into "brown-nosing" their superiors. If you've had the displeasure of wading through the Letter accompanying the Dubia, you've seen an illustration of the word: "obsequiousness" (since the dictionary was out, I checked that one too!). The current cohort of "bishops" does not exactly shine for their collective virility. Even if some agreed with me, they would never admit it publicly. So let's simplify things: assume for the sake of the discussion that I'm all alone defending my position. >> have you not constructively become a sede >> vacantist? Yes. Sadly, yes. As I've said, I hate my position. >> I have clerical friends on the right >> and left who say they are loyal to the Pope but >> don't obey him. Yes, that was an option I considered. I find it repugnant to pretend to be loyal to somebody, be he Pope or impostor. My position is uncomfortable, but it hurts a lot less than trying to cram into my head the assertion "Bergoglio is a real Pope", along with all the heresies he has officially taught. >> For this they must see the errors of AL in its worst >> light and determine that it is formal heresy. >> Contrarily we are required to look at papal >> pronouncements in their best light When Bergoglio takes the test, I'll consider backtracking. If some animal smells like a wolf, howls like a wolf and looks like a wolf, God will certainly not fault me for asking for credentials. And if you agree with Bergoglio, then you must agree with me too! Remember, my conscience is King! :-) >> the good faith >> of Pope Francis is manifestly present Are you serious? >> Surely a sitting pope should be afforded >> the same protections. You're begging the question. I claim he's probably not the Pope. So saying my arguments are wrong because he's the Pope is illogical. I have arguments, and they are clear and easy to verify. I'm not leveling "vague accusations without formal investigation by competent authority". I'm saying I want to see the White Foot. I am asking for a formal investigation, and refusing to open the door first, before I see the White Foot. >> The Acta Apostolicae Sedis >> series in our library has some 250 volumes - one >> for the first thousand years of pronouncements and >> the remaining 249 for the last thousand years. I like that one too! Must remember! >> Christ continues >> to keep His Church free from error but not from >> banality, sin or stupidity. ... if we assume Bergoglio is not the Pope. Otherwise, his very official, very "Catechism-ic", very "Acta Apostolicae Sedis-mic" teachings make Jesus a liar. >> You will have noted >> that popular accounts of Pope Francis' positions >> on, for example, homosexual sexual activity, have >> simply been wrong Wow. Bergoglio has not protected homosexual perverts? I thought it was especially unsurprising that Ouellet attacked Viganò, since I know Ouellet well, and he's a certified wolf. >> I simply do not see as credible all >> the hoops that people are jumping through in >> claiming that Pope Francis is not Pope Francis. Great, then you'll be eager to take the Test! (Also, please send me a good picture of yourself, so I can publicize as much as possible your answers to the Dubia.) >> I can continue praying >> 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco' without >> having to pretend that the prayer does not mean >> what it says it does. I've stopped saying that prayer, and instead ask God to send us a real Pope. >> I am not decrying >> judgment, of course: our ability to judge is part >> of our rationality and is a gift from God. Well, you are already way ahead of most of the people I'm stuck arguing with these days! Thanks! >> excessive >> judgment is a drug, and, as with any drug, the more >> one indulges in it, the more severe judgments one >> needs to get the same satisfaction. Sounds true. Except I'm not being excessive in my judgment. I'm asking for the data necessary to make my judgment. >> do you not find yourself making more >> and more extreme judgments over time, backing >> yourself in a moral corner? Either that, or all Hell is breaking loose and the Son of Man is about to have a really hard time finding scraps of what He transmitted to the Apostles [Lk 18:8]. I do wish the answer was Option 1. I hate Option 2. >> In taking the >> position that Pope Francis was either not validly >> elected or that he dismissed himself from office by >> embracing heresy, look to the company you are keeping. Sexy Baby! >> You will no >> doubt be quite familiar with this text from Ag. >> Heresies, III: Never heard of it. But then I'm a ignoramus, unable to read Greek or Latin... Sad. >> And this is most abundant proof that there >> is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been >> preserved in the Church from the apostles until >> now, and handed down in truth. I love that whole quote! >> I confess [...] that the >> Magisterium would someday come around to more >> enlightened positions on remarriage, women priests >> and gay marriage. I embraced all the mush-headed >> wrongs that you decried in the statements of the >> Canadian religious superiors' 'we regret.' Holy Smokes, you're a walking miracle! I'm the exact opposite. From that Feast of the Annunciation in 1982 until today, I've never waivered in any way. It was always Pope, Magisterium, Eternal Tradition, Hard Line, etc. >> It is for those reasons that I have come to a >> somewhat jaundiced view of judgments divorced from >> humility. Profound judgments require profound >> humility. Amen! Except I'm not judging. I'm asking for the data necessary to make a judgment. If somebody refuses to provide that data, I withhold my religious obedience. >> I worry that with your position you would not be able >> to make the promise of obedience required of >> deacons and priests. I'll be delighted to obey, if I'm first shown The White Foot. >> obedience was Jesus' fundamental attitude to >> sacrificing himself Notice the title of the article I keep referring to: Loyalty To Satan, Or To The Holy See? Remember, I was branded with a red-hot iron many years ago, when my Superior told me this stuff about Jesus being obedient and all that, so obedience was the most important virtue. I told him NO, because otherwise obeying Satan would be a virtue. >> as a Catholic you owe [Bergoglio] obedience in >> all things legitimate. Show me The White Foot. >> Could you now, if you were a >> priest utter the words of the Roman Canon with >> their unambiguous meaning -- 'una cum famulo tuo >> Papa nostro Francisco'? No, of course not! Why would I utter lies? I'd stick to my guns. >> I believe your stance is an >> impediment to your vocation. Certainly even the >> most orthodox of bishops would regard it as such. Ah, rigidity! >> Will you not perhaps then >> give some further thought to your papal stance Hey, speaking of white feet, you could take that Test too! Especially since your Catholicism has been shaky, whereas mine has been stone-cold solid from the start. (Did anybody mention humility, or lack thereof, somewhere in this meandering missive? DUH! But seriously, yes, I am a coward and a lazy bum, so if anything in my life is strong and courageous, it has to be because of the prayers of both my Grandmothers, etc.) >> perhaps in humility standing with the bishops and >> cardinals you admire in their more nuanced view of >> Pope Francis' papacy? What? Where? Who? A Bishop who has Shown the White Foot? >> I humbly offer you my opinion that >> your position on Pope Francis takes away from the >> otherwise unmitigated good you are offering to the >> Church. Yes, no matter how I look at it, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an unmitigated disaster. Even if he was Pope, he would still deeply suck. I just try to describe what I see, even when the Reality Check hurts. >> Please forgive me if I have offended you Offend me? The Government says I'm the one who offends others! >> I have sure faith that the gates of hell shall not >> prevail against the Church. Me too! Except according to my calculations, one heretical Bishop, one truly Catholic grandmother clutching her Rosary, and one young heman not yet converted, all three at the bottom of a dark and humid cave, hiding from the authorities, qualifies as "the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against Her". The grandmother converts the young heman to Catholicism, the Bishop (ex opere operato) baptizes then ordains him to the episcopate, and BINGO, we have apostolic succession and the Church survives! The gates of Hell have not prevailed against Her! So the promise of Christ is true, but doesn't solve my problem. >> Tomorrow is the Feast of Saint Ambrose and I shall >> be offering Mass for you and your intentions. Thank you, thank you, thank you! In Christ, SJJ
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Chysostom and others on Hell Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:46:26 +0200 From: Brother Benedict To: 'Stefan Jetchick' Dear Stefan, I very much enjoyed reading your thoughtful reply, and I have no doubts at all about your sincerity. Let us continue to pray for each other. As to the quotation attributed to Chysostom, I encountered it thirty years ago in a late Medieval Biblia Sacra cum Glossa Ordinaria -- something that preachers frequently used to access the fathers' commentaries on Scripture. The volume was in the Bibliotheque Orléans and thus might have come from Cluny. Not infrequently texts were attributed to Chysostom that were later identified as coming from other sources such as homilies on Chysostom (by Migne in the Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca). If otherwise unattributed they tended to be identified as Pseudo-Chysostom. In any case, the volume I had in my hands had to have predated Wesley by two centuries as it was written in an italic cursive. So it would be improper to attribute the quotation to Wesley, as he merely made use of an existing text. Chysostom did say that "few bishops were saved" in that same homily on Acts. Certainly from the 13th century onward, descriptions of Hell and those who peopled it tend to be more and more colorful. I think the height was reached by a contemporary of Wesley, St. Leonard of Port Maurice. Citing Chrysostom, here is what he preached about the number of priests and bishops who are saved: "... I am horror-struck when I hear Saint Jerome declaring that although the world is full of priests, barely one in a hundred is living in a manner in conformity with state; when I hear a servant of God attesting that he has learned by revelation that the number of priests who fall into hell each day is so great that it seemed impossible to him that there be any left on earth; when I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, "I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater." Look higher still, and see the prelates of the Holy Church, pastors who have the charge of souls. Is the number of those who are saved among them greater than the number of those who are damned? Listen to Cantimpre; he will relate an event to you, and you may draw the conclusions. There was a synod being held in Paris, and a great number of prelates and pastors who had the charge of souls were in attendance; the king and princes also came to add luster to that assembly by their presence. A famous preacher was invited to preach. While he was preparing his sermon, a horrible demon appeared to him and said, "Lay your books aside. If you want to give a sermon that will be useful to these princes and prelates, content yourself with telling them on our part, 'We the princes of darkness thank you, princes, prelates, and pastors of souls, that due to your negligence, the greater number of the faithful are damned; also, we are saving a reward for you for this favor, when you shall be with us in Hell.'" Pretty frightening, is it not? Do spare a prayer to St. Anselm of Canterbury this day on his feast. He was a great teacher as a monk and abbot, and as bishop he suffered much to maintain the teachings of the Church. He would make a good intercessor for us today. Sincerely yours in the Sacred Hearts, Br. Benedict
[I have not stopped corresponding with Fr. McCaffree, but I only post what relates to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and [Ap 2:2].
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves