The "Catholic" Free Press: Pope Francis' example makes it possible to accept heresy

The Catholic Church claims, and has pronounced on many occasions, the infallible truth that Christ both willed and established a hierarchical Church.  Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., in his book entitled Fundamentals of Catholicism, Volume 3, notes how, "In the course of her long history, there have been many heretics and dissenters who have denied, in one way or another, the hierarchical constitution of the Church.  Some have said that Jesus had no intention of establishing a visible Church with bishops, priests and sacred authority; for them, the Church is an internal, invisible reality of the heart that arises from the preaching of the Gospel and faith in Jesus.  Others rejected the special priesthood and the hierarchy, and acknowledged only the general priesthood of all the faithful.  Against them the Council of Trent solemnly declared: 'If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is no divinely instituted hierarchy consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers: let him be anathema.'" (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. III, p. 102, citing Canon 6 of the Council of Trent's Canons on the Sacrament of Order).

The word anathema comes from the Greek meaning hated or accursed.  An anathema is an excommunication.  Saint Paul employs this term to describe  those who have separated themselves from the Christian community by sins such as teaching a false gospel [See for example Galatians 1].

Those who produce The "Catholic" Free Press [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts] have now separated themselves from the Church's communion by embracing the very notion that the Council of Trent anathematized: that the hierarchical constitution of the Church is not divinely instituted.

In an editorial entitled, "Winning friends and souls" [January 10, 2014 edition], the newspaper makes the claim that: "Over the centuries the Catholic Church has acquired a vertical and pyramidal power structure, with graduated layers of hierarchical status from top to bottom.  Pope Francis' example makes it possible to say that that might not be right: that far from being the Church's defining characteristic, the very idea of a hierarchy of power is alien to the Gospel*, just as is the idea that all that power should be exclusively in the hands of elderly male clerics.."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church [which the "Catholic" Free Press apparently has little or no use for] refutes such nonsense: "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church...a society structured with hierarchical organs" (CCC, 771).  And again: "Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church.  He instituted the Church.  He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal." (CCC, 874).  And again: "When Christ instituted the Twelve, 'he constituted them in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.'  Just as 'by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." (CCC, 880).

For the modernist, dogmas are merely tentative, provisional formulas which are the fruit of on-going religious experience and are as changeable as that experience itself.  For such deluded souls, future followers of the Antichrist, authority in the Church does not originate from Christ Jesus but from the Collective Conscience.  For such sons of Hell, the Church is not hierarchical but democratic.

Make no mistake about it: the "Catholic" Free Press is not interested in reformation and authentic renewal within the Church.  For such a renewal can only come about from holiness of life.  No, this long-time dissenting newspaper (see here for example) has become openly satanic .  As such, its goal is not reformation but revolution - the transformation of Christianity and the re-shaping of Christ's Church into the image and likeness of man.


The Man of Sin draws ever closer.


*  Alien to the Gospel?  The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church.  It was Saint Peter who presided over and issued the authoritative pronouncement (Acts 15: 7-11) and  Saint James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, who issued a concurring concluding statement (Acts 15: 13-29).

Those who produce the "Catholic" Free Press should spend more time with Scripture.

Sentinel & Enterprise: Will Pope Francis be another John Paul XXIII?

You have to hand it to Charles St. Amand, the editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise, a local newspaper serving the Leominster-Fitchburg area as well as seven other cities and towns.  The man is most consistent.  When it comes to articles and editorials which touch upon the Catholic Church in particular and Catholicism in general,  Mr. St. Amand never troubles himself with getting the facts straight.  See here for example.

Take yesterday's editorial entitled, "Francis: Whose shoes will he fill?"  We read: "With the election of a new pope, Catholics around the world must be wondering what the latest successor to St. Peter has in mind for the Mother Church...He has shown himself to be socially conservative in Argentina by his stance against gay marriage and his backing of the traditional role of women in the Church, but he has also scolded some of his priests there for their refusal to baptize children born out of wedlock."

Actually, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" should never be applied to the Church.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "These terms, facilely applied to many natural realms, can be extremely misleading when applied to the Church.  It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.  Divine revelation and the Mystical Body of Christ differ completely from all natural entities.  To be conservative, to be a traditionalist, is in this case an essential element of the response due to the unique phenomenon of the Church.  Even a man in no way conservative in temperament and in many other respects progressive must be conservative in his relation to the infallible magisterium of the Church, if he is to remain an orthodox Catholic.  One can be progressive and simultaneously a Catholic, but one cannot be a progressive in one's Catholic faith.  The idea of a 'progressive Catholic' in this sense is an oxymoron, a contradictio in adjecto...With the labels conservative and progressive they [the intellectually dishonest with an anti-Catholic agenda] are in fact requiring the faithful to choose between opposition to any renewal, opposition even to the elimination of things that have crept into the Church because of human frailty (e.g., legalism, abstractionism, external pressure in questions of conscience, grave abuses of authority in monasteries) and a change, a 'progress' in the Catholic faith which can only mean its abandonment.  These are false alternatives.  For there is a third choice, which welcomes the official decisions of the Vatican Council (Vatican II) but at the same time emphatically rejects the secularizing interpretations given them by many so-called progressive theologians and laymen.  This thirs choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church.  It takes it for granted that there is no room for change in the divinely revealed doctrine of the Church." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 10-11).

So it's not a question of Pope Francis being "conservative" or "progressive."  The Holy Father opposes so-called same-sex "marriage" and the ordination of women to the priesthood because divinely revealed doctrine cannot change. 

The Sentinel & Enterprise editorial refers to Pope Francis' predecessor on the Chair of Peter, the same Pontiff who called for Vatican II, as "Pope John Paul XXIII": "Will he [Pope Francis] maintain his life of simplicity and pursuit of social justice, or will he be the next John Paul XXIII?"  Obviously, the writer of this confused editorial was thinking of Pope John XXIII who was elected Pontiff on October 28, 1958 and installed on November 4th of that same year.  Pope John reigned as Vicar of Christ until June 3, 1963.

This is the sort of coverage of Catholicism that Catholics have come to expect from the Sentinel & Enterprise.  But they deserve better.

Related reading here.

The Sentinel & Enterprise is to be commended....to a point.

"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Socrates, Phaedo 85.


In an editorial entitled "Councilor Starr, Old Glory's a symbol of freedom of speech," (Friday, March 12th edition of the newspaper, the Sentinel & Enterprise rightly chides Fitchburg City Councilor Kevin Starr for inappropriately lashing out at pro-life advocates saying, "We couldn't disagree more with Starr's comments. First of all, one of the most important things the American flag stands for is freedom of speech. That means when people, including his constituents, take the time to show up at City Hall to speak out about an issue, they have the absolute right, and we believe responsibility, to tell city councilors how they feel. We think it's exactly the kind of discussion that should be taking place at City Hall and frankly are puzzled with Starr's comments about the issue...as a city councilor, we believe Starr has a responsibility to listen to his constituents' concerns, as long as they are presented in a civil way, even when he disagrees with them."

But then the newspaper drops the ball toward the end of this editorial when it says, "We don't believe that Starr owes anyone an apology, because we believe firmly that Starr, like the pro-life advocates he criticized and like Hughes [Rev. Thomas Hughes, Pastor of New Creation Community Church in Fitchburg], has the solemn right to say what's on his mind."

This misses the point entirely. Mr. Starr doesn't owe anyone an apology for exercising his free speech rights. He owes an apology to the community because, as an elected governmental official, he expressed a desire to restrict expression because of its message or content.

There is a paramount principle in American jurisprudence that "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92,95, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 2286 (1972); see also Consolidated Edison Co. v.Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 319, 100 S. Ct. 2326(1980). And that: "For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." Perry Educational Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators'Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983). Cannon v. Cityand County of Denver, 998 F.2d at 871-72

Just as Mr. Starr's constituents have a responsibility to present their views to him [and other government officials] "in a civil way," so too Mr. Starr owes his constituents the courtesy of remaining civil while not attempting to restrict expression because he doesn't happen to like the message.