"The Dictator Pope": Mysterious New Book Looks "Behind the Mask" of Francis

BrianK,
Thank you for posting this. In our society, I think that the writer of this article probably sold more copies of this book by stating, "This is certainly not a book I would recommend most people reading, especially those who are easily shocked." than Robert Royal sold by suggesting that everyone who is interested in what is going on in the Vatican should read the book. Maybe that was the writer's plan though.

 

The culture of blackmail naturally follows as the New Low. It is inherent to the culture of death and sin. It is especially linked to power and homosexuality, IMHO.

 

Old forum contributor, Stephen Walford, has received plenty of 'stick' here since his departure but the Catholic Herald has interviewed him in its latest issue:

‘The abuse I’ve received has been unreal’: An interview with Stephen Walford

by Mark Greaves
posted Thursday, 7 Dec 2017

‘I love the popes’: Stephen Walford (back right) and family meet Francis (Getty)

A piano teacher with no theological training has found unlikely fame - and plenty of critics - after his defence of Amoris Laetitia

Stephen Walford was a 20-year-old music student at Bristol University when he experienced what he calls “demonic interference”. He was praying on his own in church one evening in November. Something hadn’t felt right the moment he walked in – it seemed as if he was being watched. Later, when he opened his eyes, he realised the candles had gone out and he was in almost total darkness. He could hear footsteps in front of him even though no one was there. In the end, he was so unnerved that he cut short his prayers and left. “I was aware in that moment that I had failed,” he says.

The “demonic interference”, he says, wanted him to stop what he was doing – at the time he was praying for souls that were dying. “My one regret is not staying there till the end and ignoring it.”

Walford is telling me this story at his home in Hedge End, Southampton. I have visited him because of his sudden prominence in the debate about Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation on the family. In the past few months he has emerged, almost from nowhere, as one of the Pope’s chief defenders in the row over Communion for the remarried. His denunciations of the text’s critics have been fierce – and the reaction has been too. One priest told him he was “leading souls to hell”. Another Twitter opponent said: “You obviously don’t care about your own soul.”

That he is a piano teacher, with no training in theology, and was granted a 45-minute private audience with the Pope in July, seemingly as a reward for his online articles, has only made him more of a target for people’s anger.

His critics, though, have got him wrong. And within minutes of walking through his front door I realise I’d got him wrong too. I had assumed that, given his strong support for the possibility of Communion for the remarried, he was a liberal. But he hands me tea in a Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club mug (“Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981!”) and says he would describe himself as a conservative Catholic. He is blokey and forthright. “I love the popes,” he says. “I stick with the popes no matter what.”

Walford may be a piano teacher but he is no theological slouch. He has written two books and his latest, Communion of Saints, about how souls in heaven and purgatory are united with the faithful on earth, was described as “inspiring” and “theologically reliable” by none other than Fr Thomas Weinandy, the former head of the US bishops’ doctrine committee, who recently published a scathing letter accusing Pope Francis of creating “chronic confusion”.

Walford’s house is quiet when I arrive: his wife and five children are out for lunch at Pizza Hut. We settle into deep, comfy sofas under a photograph of the family meeting Pope Francis. His kids, he says, told him it was the best day of their lives. “It’s something I will treasure forever,” he adds.

He explains that he had a typical conservative Catholic upbringing. He was raised on the daily rosary, Fatima and “stories of Padre Pio fighting the Devil”. He shows me two relics given to him by family friends – one, a hair of St Maria Goretti, the other a piece of Padre Pio’s purificator. At school, he says, his folders were always covered with pictures of John Paul II.

For Walford, the real issue in the Amoris controversy is papal authority. As the row broke out late last year, he was dismayed to see “normal conservative Catholics starting to be swayed by traditionalist rhetoric” that the Pope “wasn’t a Catholic”, or that “something’s gone haywire with the papal office”. But, he says, “The Pope is the Pope – the spokesman for the will of the Lord.” The office of the papacy is similar to Doctor Who, Walford says, where each Doctor is the original Doctor “regenerated”. (Walford is a big Whovian.)

At the beginning of this year, he emailed a pitch to Andrea Tornielli, editor of Vatican Insider, a website run by La Stampa, and then wrote a series of articles attacking papal critics. They were provocative: Walford accused the dubia cardinals of fuelling “satanic abuse” of the Pope. They were also unprecedented in their all-out defence of the principle of Communion for the remarried. To question Francis on the subject, he said, was to “call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism”.

That struck some as extreme. After all, swathes of the Church, including many senior figures, explicitly reject Communion for the remarried and don’t accept that Francis has introduced it. But Walford says he always thought Amoris was clear – from the start he read footnote 351 as allowing Communion for the remarried in some cases. And since then, he says, Pope Francis has given various signals that that was what he meant.

But he thinks that the circumstances in which a remarried person would be admitted to Communion are “probably rare”. There has to be a “desire to get out of the situation”, he says. He imagines a person in anguish who wants to change the situation but “feels trapped” and can’t.

He cites St Faustina Kowalska, the Polish mystic who inspired the Divine Mercy devotion. In her diary she describes a dialogue between Jesus and a despairing soul. Jesus tells the soul that, even after continually rejecting his advances, they would be saved if they showed a mere “flicker of goodwill”.

Walford has a lifelong devotion to St Faustina and a painting of her hangs on the wall. (Aside from the photograph with the Pope, it’s the only other picture I see on the wall.) He says “a real, authentic Catholic life” is to do “everything we can to help [people] get to heaven”.

Life, he says, is “not straightforward”. “Most people do not live lives of heroic virtue. They have to strive for that. Of course they have to strive for that. But, for me, Jesus surely takes into account the intention, that desire to change. It’s not taking away the sin but reducing the culpability because they’ve acknowledged their state and they want to change it.”

Walford thinks the Pope’s “merciful” approach to the remarried is in line with the Divine Mercy tradition – and that this is the direction the Church will continue to go in. Traditionalists, he says, “don’t like Divine Mercy”. “They prefer the security of God’s justice. You know where you are with God’s justice. It’s a lot harder to accept mercy.”

Walford says the abuse he has received this year has been “unreal”. He thinks the reason is that he’s been so vigorous in defending the Pope: “It’s the fact that I haven’t buckled.” I try to suggest that some of his arguments haven’t been entirely polite either (he called the “filial correction” of Amoris “risible” and criticised it for its “glaring hypocrisy”). But he doesn’t see it like that. He insists he has never attacked anyone personally. “I will admit that on a few occasions I have responded with humour,” he says.

I ask him about people deriding him as a piano teacher. “It doesn’t bother me,” he replies. “God sometimes uses nobodies – put it like that. To me, God has opened a door for me to be part of the debate.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/iss...een-unreal-an-interview-with-stephen-walford/

 

How depressing is Stephen Walford? His words are but a dirge!

I have known many ordinary Catholics who has lived lives of heroic virtue. Walford wants a Christianity without the cross and a 'sweet saccharine' Christ.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me".

Every single human being who has ever lived and who is to come is called to holiness., That is the call of Christ 'to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect'. This is the universal call to holiness that was at the heart of Vatican II.

When one encounters Christ and decides to truly follow him grace is given even in the most difficult of circumstances. And that includes the grace to give up sin. It is possible for those who have entered an invalid union and then who encounter Christ to then live in continence by the grace of God. To deny that is to deny the omnipotent power of God. Go and sin no more!

Now that is the Good News! God's grace is truly transformative.

 

As usual, Mark Mallett is spot on in his assessment of Pope Francis written in charity and truth

The Testing – Part II
Posted on December 7, 2017 by Mark

THE NOW WORD ON MASS READINGS
for December 7th, 2017
Thursday of the First Week of Advent
Memorial of St. Ambrose

Liturgical texts here





WITH the controversial events of this week that unfolded in Rome (see The Papacy is Not One Pope), the words have been lingering in my mind once again that all of this is a testing of the faithful. I wrote about this in October 2014 shortly after the tendentious Synod on the family (see The Testing). Most important in that writing is the part about Gideon….

I also wrote then as I do now: “what happened in Rome was not a test to see how loyal you are to the Pope, but how much faith you have in Jesus Christ who promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.” I also said, “if you think that there is confusion now, wait till you see what’s coming…”

THE MATCH

A new book called Il Papa Dittatore (The Dictator Pope) has just been released in English. It is written under a pseudonymous author who calls himself Marcantonio Colonna. LifeSiteNews, which has notably shifted in the past two years to becoming one of the pseudo-official voices of papal dissent, provides a review of the book, which alleges that Pope Francis is…

…arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs. —LifeSiteNews, December 6th, 2017

Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing and papal commentator for EWTN, says:

…the sheer amount of evidence it provides is stunning. About 90 percent of it is simply incontrovertible, and cannot help but clarify who Francis is and what he’s about. —Ibid.

According to the reviews I’ve read, such as this one from Vatican analyst Marco Tosatti:

There is no news of great importance, or extraordinary revelations in “Il Papa Dittatore”; but it certainly is well documented, interesting and valuable… —marcotosatti.com, Nov. 29th, 2017

What, then, is the “value” of a book that has no news or revelations of great importance, but is seemingly intended to expose the character flaws of the Vicar of Christ? A book with the intention of presenting a ‘scheming Jorge Bergoglio’ in order to counter the ‘humble Pope Francis’? In the big picture, I don’t know. But those vocal opponents of Pope Francis who have been providing fuel for a schism might have just been handed a match.



A POPE OF THE FLESH

But as one reader said to me, “I don’t doubt a fleshy side to our Pope. People will use the book for sure to prove he is dark. But was anything illegal (during the papal election) in terms of canon law? That’s the question. It’s not illegal to have flesh.”

Scandalous? Perhaps. But the history of the Church is, unfortunately, pock-marked by popes who scandalized their office.

The fact that it is Peter who is called the “rock” is not due to any achievement on his part or to anything exceptional in his character; it is simply a nomen officii, a titled that designates, not a service rendered, but a ministry conferred, a divine election and commission to which no one is entitled solely by virtue of his own character —least of all Simon, who, if we are to judge by his natural character, was anything but a rock. —POPE BENEDICT XIV, from Das neue Volk Gottes, p. 80ff

This is to say that we could have a pope, as we have had in the past, who sells his papacy, fathers children, increases his personal wealth, abuses his privileges, and misuses his authority. He could appoint modernists to major posts, Judases to sit at his table, and even Lucifer to the Curia. He could dance naked on the Vatican walls, tattoo his face, and project animals onto the facade of St. Peter’s. And all of this would create a ruckus, upheaval, scandal, division, and sorrow upon sorrow. And it would test the faithful as to whether or not their faith is in man, or in Jesus Christ. It would test them to wonder if Jesus really meant what He promised—that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

But today’s First Reading confirms Christ’s words to us:

A strong city have we; he sets up walls and ramparts to protect us. Open up the gates to let in a nation that is just, one that keeps faith. A nation of firm purpose you keep in peace; in peace, for its trust in you. Trust in the LORD forever! For the LORD is an eternal Rock.

It is a nation that keeps faith who are safeguarded. Brothers and sisters, for three years I have tried to point out the middle road between those who are utterly convinced that Pope Francis is a masonic, communist, false prophet and antipope—and those, on the other hand, who will not hear the slightest critique of the Holy Father’s ministry. The middle road is this: to trust that Jesus is still building His Church, even upon a rock that, at times, appears to be more of a stumbling stone. In today’s Gospel, Jesus says that the one who is wise builds his house on rock. And so I ask again: is Jesus a wise builder? Re-read Jesus, the Wise Builder.

I am not denying that there is a lot at stake today, and it is more than the truth: it is the very unity of the Church itself. It is her unity that, in fact, preserves the truth. For if different factions claim to have the truth, then you have war. So what then of the current debate on Communion to the divorced and remarried? The answer is that we must trust Jesus that, in the end, the truth will prevail as it has for 2000 years. Perhaps some should stop viewing the charism of infallibility like a magic wand that makes all questions disappear, but rather as a firm guard rail leading up a narrow rocky terrain that safely guides one past error. In the present situation, a “Peter and Paul” moment may be necessary where, like St. Paul, unity was preserved in the midst of filial correction. Paul, who called Peter a “pillar” of the Church,[1] at the same time, did not hesitate to correct him “face to face.” [2] We do not read that Paul wrote letters to the churches condemning Peter, exposing his faults, and humiliating him before the People of God. Like David of old who was tempted to strike down Saul while he slept, instead: [3]

David bowed to the ground in homage and [said]… “I had some thought of killing you, but I took pity on you instead. I decided, ‘I will not raise a hand against my lord, for he is the LORD’s anointed and a father to me.'” (1 Sam 24:9-11)

This is why, despite the deepest disagreement one may have with “Peter”, Christ calls us to remain on the middle road of filial charity and unity, which can be a long and painful path as history has shown at times. Nonetheless:

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” —Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882

They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. —POPE PIUS XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ), June 29, 1943; n. 41; vatican.va

 

continued......

Filial correction of one another is always based on charity—not an attack on the character of one’s brothers and sisters, much less the Vicar of Christ. I will say this much: the current path of those who love the truth, but who do not love in truth, is what is most alarming to me. I have been called a lot of names this week for defending the Church’s unity and not attacking Pope Francis. But these poor souls are missing the point. They have forgotten who is the Admiral of the Barque of Peter, who is the Builder of the Church, and who is the Keeper of the Truth. They are failing the test—both those who do not guard the “deposit of faith”, and those who do not trust the One who gave it.

… it will be then; then, perhaps, when we are all of us in all parts of Christendom so divided, and so reduced, so full of schism, so close upon heresy. When we have cast ourselves upon the world and depend for protection upon it, and have given up our independence and our strength, then [Antichrist] will burst upon us in fury as far as God allows him. —Blessed John Henry Newman, Sermon IV: The Persecution of Antichrist

Self-righteousness is a form of pride the devil reserves for good people. —Janet Klasson (Pelianito)

I don’t know if Pope Francis is doing God’s will in any given circumstance, but I do know that he is accomplishing God’s will, even if we don’t understand or see it happening. —Vicki Chiment, reader

 

These are excellent quotes you have given. And your statement about loving the truth but not always loving in truth is spot on!! You should not be under siege for defending the papacy. Every Catholic worth his salt should be doing that.

 

Poor Stephen indeed. For someone who knows so much, he knows so little.
He spouts pure Neo-ultramontanism.
He is exactly what the church prelates were afraid of at Vatican I.

 

Indeed. He badmouthed the Dubia Cardinals and got to meet the Pope. Says it all really.

 

What is also say's is the pope is paying attention to what is being said about him for good or bad.

 

Or at least his handlers.

 

Most likely that awful Fr. Spadaro had him invited to the Vatican. The Pope might not have a clue that he wrote a piece dissing the Dubia Cardinals. Walford was ostensibly there to give the Pope a copy of his book. There's no way of knowing for sure that the Pope was aware the photo op would be used as some kind of imprimater of Walford's opinion piece.

 

Well, I don't see Mark Mallett being invited there with his family any time to soon.

 

I think Mark might find the cold shoulder in a lot of places now.

 

Mark wouldn't be invited because he doesn't promote an anti-Catholic agenda. His review of that book wouldn't do his chances of meeting the Pope any harm. There's an implied criticism of the dubia Cardinals when he says that St. Paul didn't go around writing letters about St. Peter. St. Paul did, in fact, correct St. Peter in public and he did write about it afterwards otherwise we wouldn't know about it. The difference between that incident and the current problem with Pope Francis is that Peter corrected his error. Pope Francis has doubled down and sent out people to attack the characters of the dubia Cardinals. Mark conveniently avoids mentioning that. He also conveniently avoids mentioning that even our worst popes of the past didn't set about dismantling the deposit of faith by separating what the Church teaches from what the Church practices.

No. Mark hasn't harmed his chances of a photo op with the Pope. Then again, as a practising Catholic who believes all that the Church teaches, his chances were slim to none anyway.

 

I think all of us are on a journey of understanding where events in the Church are concerned. Some of us are just beginning to fully wake up and take the first steps. I think we have to be patient with some who have maybe not travelled down the road as far as we have. I just thank the Good Lord that they are wakening up at all, I was beginning to wonder. It reminds me of the Legend of Sleeping Beauty, they finally got the wake up kiss.

It also reminded me of the word of the Japanese commander at Pearl Harbour, 'We have awoken the sleeping giant'. I was looking at the faces of Michael Voris and his team and I saw the very same deep fear, almost terror as there was on the faces of Raymond Arroyo and his posse some time ago.

I try to be as charitable and careful as I can about what is going on in the Vatican , we must walk this road so carefully, always walking; never running too far ahead. Yet at the same time as I gaze down the miles ahead (maybe not too far ahead) I understand we may be facing something truly horrendous now, a huge monstrous evil and the words of Yeats poem are never far from my inner thoughts;

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

http://www.yeatsvision.com/secondnotes.html

 

we walk a thin line of watchfulness and love always holding on to peace. Difficult at times but I think it is the attitude Our Lady wants from her little children.

 

Let's not be too harsh on Mark Mallett. He may be a few steps behind where the rest of us are, but I think God is bringing him along at his own pace. Hopefully along with much of his readership as well. He certainly is no Modernist sell-out. He strikes me as a gentle man and conflict like this may be hard for him to swallow.

 

Let's not be too easy on Mark Mallett.
He is one who is calling those who are defending the faith responsible for causing schism.

 

It must be very, very hard for people who have fulltime apostolates. Ok for us to come straight out and say what we think but we will still be able to put food on the table tomorrow. It's harder, I believe, for people like Mark Mallet or Michael Voris who don't have the official backing and financial support of the Church and don't receive funds from organisations like the Knights of Columbus. Please God there will soon be an end to this internal attack on the Deposit of Faith by those whose duty it is to defend it. Then they can all go back to saying what they believe without fear that it could be perceived as a criticism of the Pope.