Liturgical ‘devastation’ reflects serious crisis of faith, says Cardinal Sarah.......http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31174
"From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes, so will she lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, she will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, she will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. Undoubtedly she will discover new forms of ministry and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession. In many smaller congregations or in self-contained social groups, pastoral care will normally be provided in this fashion. Alongside this, the full-time ministry of the priesthood will be indispensable as formerly. But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world. In faith and prayer she will again recognize her true center and experience the sacraments again as the worship of God and not as a subject for liturgical scholarship. The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystalization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. One may predict that all of this will take time. The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism of the eve of the French Revolution—when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain—to the renewal of the nineteenth century. But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret. And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already with Gobel, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death". —Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (POPE BENEDICT XVI), Faith and Future
1P5 Blog “Put the Flicker on for a Right Turn, but Go Left.” Steve Skojec March 30, 2017 Over at LifeSiteNews, editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen has an analysis of the current state of confusion as regards the papal position on Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” boldly titled, Pope Francis is playing with fire. Hell fire. Westen has, as we’ve recently noted, been taking a harder line against Francis, and is being met with a positive response from Catholics who are not a part of the “traditionalist” movement, where such criticisms originally seemed to take deepest root. In his new piece, Westen observes: We had his signature on a letter supporting the Buenos Aires bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. We had testimony to the Pope’s view by Germany’s Cardinal Marx, one of the Pope’s Council of 9 Cardinals. We had the Maltese bishops say so. We had the chief interpreter of legislative texts at the Vatican say so. And we’ve seen numerous articles published in the Vatican newspaper advocating this break with Tradition. There have been a couple of opposing voices, such as that of Cardinal Muller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and most recently the Chilean bishops. While the statements from Cardinal Muller seemed to be more his own opinion than that of the Pope, the Chilean bishops recently made comments to one of Chile’s major papers that seemed to indicate Pope Francis himself gave them a conservative interpretation of his exhortation forbidding Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. In addition, some Catholic bloggers have interpreted the Chilean bishops’ statements to indicate that Pope Francis also opposes communion for Catholic politicians who support abortion. Some have even taken from the bishops’ remarks that the Pope rejects a married priesthood, contradicting what he said to the German newspaper Die Zeit in an interview only a short time after their meeting. To sort all this out is not easy. One key comes from the Catholic Herald’s Dan Hitchens. He points out correctly that the reporter who interviewed the Chilean bishops, and those commenting on the bishops’ remarks, may actually be engaging in wishful thinking. I would also recommend my own analysis of this matter here and here. Boiled down, it can be summarized as follows: What the Chilean bishops are saying amounts to nothing more than hearsay, particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence already in existence that the pope’s position is indistinguishable from the so-called “Kasper proposal”. Self-contradiction has been part of Francis’ mode of operation from day one, and as Hilary White argued some time ago, the purpose of all this confusion seems to be to help him foment his power, through a forced acquiescence to his ever-evolving hermeneutic of self. Or as she so succinctly put it, his answer to those trying to understand what Amoris Laetitia means is: “It means what I say it means. It means shut up.” If you want to know what Francis means, you have to listen to what he’s saying today, and forget what he said yesterday. He’s the only decoder ring to all of his own incomprehensible verbal chaff. Allowing the Chilean bishops to disseminate the idea that he is in fact in favor of the orthodox position on Communion for the “remarried” acts as an effective smokescreen against the Four Cardinals and their allegedly still-in-the-works formal correction. It’s far harder to correct a guy throwing out mixed signals than one who is perfectly clear. This is where Westen brings to bear an anecdote that I found particularly illuminating: For those who knew Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio prior to his election to the pontificate, this is nothing new. I spoke to a few priests from Buenos Aires who worked with Cardinal Bergoglio in different capacities and from them learned that confusion is emblematic of his ministry. One anecdote in particular was very instructive. I was told that people from opposite camps would both come out of meetings with Cardinal Bergoglio believing he supported their position. “He’s with us but can’t say so publicly,” they would relate, as would those who met with him from the opposing camp. While in an archdiocese this may work for a time, this learned priest told me, in the Vatican where just about everything the Pope says is trumpeted to the world, these kinds of discrepancies become evident more quickly. Francis, the priest told me, is very much a Peronist — named for former Argentina President Juan Domingo Perón. Like Perón, Pope Francis plays with both left wing and right wing factions. The priest tells a story about President Peron that helps to understand Francis. Once Peron was in his car and at a fork in the road his driver asked him which way he would like to go, to which Peron replied: “Put the flicker on for a right turn, but go left.” And there you have it. Every time this happens, it’s like deja vu all over again.
Dietrich von Hildebrand, “The Devastated Vineyard” “One of the most horrifying and widespread diseases in the Church today is the lethargy of the guardians of the Faith of the Church … who make no use whatever of their authority when it comes to intervening against heretical theologians or priests, or against blasphemous performances of public worship … but assume a rigorously authoritarian attitude towards those believers who are fighting for orthodoxy, and who are thus doing what the bishops ought to be doing themselves! … They want to silence the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy, the very people who should by all rights be the joy of the bishops’ hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy. Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace. …”
A great quote Sunburst. So true. We can't blame Pope Francis for everything.He didnt elevate the likes of Marx and Kaspar to Cardinal.
Cardinal Sarah is right on the money: “Political Europe is rebuked for abandoning or denying its Christian roots,” Cardinal Sarah remarked. “But the first to have abandoned her Christian roots and past is indisputably the post-conciliar Catholic Church.”
The article in full: Liturgical ‘devastation’ reflects serious crisis of faith, says Cardinal Sarah March 31, 2017 In an address to a German conference marking the 10th anniversary of the Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, offered an extraordinarily blunt appraisal of “the disaster, the devastation, and the schism that the modern promoters of a living liturgy caused.” Cardinal Sarah reminded his audience that in releasing Summorum Pontificum, broadening access to the traditional Latin liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI had expressed the hope that the two forms of the Roman rite would enrich each other. That enrichment is badly needed, the cardinal argued, in light of the impoverished state of the Catholic liturgy today. He said: The serious crisis of faith, not only at the level of the Christian faithful but also and especially among many priests and bishops, has made us incapable of understanding the Eucharistic liturgy as a sacrifice, as identical to the act performed once and for all by Jesus Christ, making present the Sacrifice of the Cross in a non-bloody manner, throughout the Church, through different ages, places, peoples and nations. There is often a sacrilegious tendency to reduce the Holy Mass to a simple convivial meal, the celebration of a profane feast, the community’s celebration of itself, or even worse, a terrible diversion from the anguish of a life that no longer has meaning or from the fear of meeting God face to face, because His glance unveils and obliges us to look truly and unflinchingly at the ugliness of our interior life. “Even today, a significant number of Church leaders underestimate the serious crisis that the Church is going through: relativism in doctrinal, moral and disciplinary teaching, grave abuses, the desacralization and trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy,” Cardinal Sarah argued. He said that while some liturgists say the period after Vatican II as a “springtime” for the Church, today wiser observers recognize “a renunciation of her centuries-old heritage.” “Political Europe is rebuked for abandoning or denying its Christian roots,” Cardinal Sarah remarked. “But the first to have abandoned her Christian roots and past is indisputably the post-conciliar Catholic Church.” This resonates with me - I feel that the turning point, for the worse, was Vatican II.
The Church and the liturgy face a ‘profound crisis’, says Cardinal Sarah by Staff Reporter posted Monday, 3 Apr 2017 Cardinal Robert Sarah (Getty) The Vatican's liturgy chief said 'high-ranking prelates' were affirming 'obvious doctrinal, moral and liturgical errors' Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Vatican’s liturgical chief, has spoken of a “serious, profound crisis” in the liturgy and the Church since the Second Vatican Council. In a message to a liturgical conference in Herzogenrath, Germany, translated for Catholic World Report by Michael J Miller, Cardinal Sarah praised Vatican II’s document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. But he said the Council had been followed by a “serious crisis of faith, not only at the level of the Christian faithful but also and especially among many priests and bishops”. The cardinal, who is Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said the “crisis” was particularly visible in the way the Mass has been understood and celebrated. He argued that many Catholics had neglected “sacred silence”, and gestures such as kneeling which express reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. They had also forgotten that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, “identical to the act performed once and for all by Jesus Christ, making present the Sacrifice of the Cross in a non-bloody manner”. He added that the Church had experienced “devastation, destruction and wars” not only in the liturgy, but also in doctrine, morals and Church discipline. “More and more voices of high-ranking prelates stubbornly affirm obvious doctrinal, moral and liturgical errors that have been condemned a hundred times, and work to demolish the little faith remaining in the people of God,” he said. The conference was on the tenth anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio which called for “mutual enrichment” between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass, and gave greater freedom to celebrate the older form. Cardinal Sarah had originally planned to attend the conference, but had “unexpected” obligations and sent a message instead. He quoted several times from Benedict’s writings, including his remark – when Cardinal Ratzinger – that the Church’s crisis was “to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy”. Cardinal Sarah suggested that the crisis had followed when God was displaced from the centre of the liturgy. Instead of directing worship towards the adoration of God, the Eucharist became dominated by merely human motives such as “the community’s celebration of itself”.
Pete Baklinski NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCHTue Apr 4, 2017 - 11:55 am EST Vatican archbishop’s homoerotic mural is a ‘true scandal’ that reaches the pope: US art critic March 22, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A U.S. painter and respected art critic said she was not only “shocked,” but “astounded,” by LifeSiteNews’ report earlier this month about a prominent Vatican archbishop who commissioned a homoerotic painting in which he was featured clasped to a semi-naked man. Maureen Mullarkey, a member of the International Association of Art Critics and senior contributor to The Federalist, wrote on her blog that she at first dismissed the “crux of the story” after being alerted to it by friends. “A too-quick glance at the mural left me thinking that the most shocking thing here was the lumpen figuration and the then-bishop’s abysmal lack of aesthetic discrimination,” she wrote, adding: “Diverted by art history and the aesthetics of the thing, I missed the crux of the story.” But after reading the entire LifeSiteNews report and examining the mural in detail for herself, Mullarkey said she now “regret not having paid closer attention before shrugging in dismissal.” Mullarkey called the mural an “out-and-proud” display that reveals not only a “creep,” but a much deeper problem within the Vatican under Francis’ pontificate. Then-Bishop Vincenzo Paglia appears in an "erotic" net in his cathedral mural clutching another semi-nude man. Archbishop Paglia commissioned homosexual Argentinean Ricardo Cinalli to paint the cathedral mural in 2007. Covering the entire back wall of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia, it depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions. Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March 2016 that the archbishop oversaw every detail of the work. “There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” he said. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.” In the right-hand net, young naked children can be seen entangled with the bodies of older men and women. In another instance, one male can be seen with his hand between another male’s legs groping his reproductive organ. The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb. Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then-diocesan bishop. He is depicted wearing his skull cap and clutching another semi-nude man who is tenderly embracing him. Cinalli told La Repubblica that the naked people in the nets were meant to be “erotic,” although Paglia drew the line when Cinalli proposed to show people actually copulating. Commented Mullarkey: “Paglia’s narcissism—the urge to flaunt his liberation from the moral considerations he is pledged to honor—is stunning. It is a finger in the eye of congregants who trust in a priest’s fidelity to his vows. To place it in a public house of worship is treachery. It is also a declaration of Paglia’s own trust in his immunity from reprimand.” Mullarkey wrote that the painting forces congregants to “peep through a keyhole at [Paglia’s] sexual inclinations—and suggested behavior.” “Abandoning reticence, Paglia disdains his own flock. He is taunting them. There is malice in that,” she wrote. Mullarkey’s criticisms are all the more poignant given that she once dabbled in homosexual themes in her earlier career. LifeSiteNews reached out to Mullarkey for comment, but did not receive a response by press time. Mullarkey said that Paglia and his mural reveal a much deeper problem happening within the Church under Francis’ watch. “Ultimately, the core of the issue here is not about a mural at all. Not substantially. Nor is it even about Archbishop Paglia. It is about a degraded Vatican culture which props up a man like Paglia, awarding him authority when he should be handed sackcloth and ashes and packed off to a hermitage.” After serving as President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Pope Francis appointed the archbishop last year to head the Pontifical Academy for Life and also made him Grand Chancellor of the St. John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family. As the former head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, he oversaw the development and launch of a sex-ed course for teens that contained explicit images. Commented Mullarkey: “The true scandal here is the basis—which goes unmentioned—of Paglia’s confidence that he could broadcast his sexuality on a cathedral wall without fear of censure. On what protections did his certainty rely? Who are the enablers of this cocksure display of male bonding? From how high up the ecclesial ladder does Paglia’s insurance come? And why is the damned thing still there?” Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia Founding members of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life raised concern last week about Paglia’s capacity to lead the Academy on account of the homoerotic depictions he commissioned in his cathedral. “This work is absolutely disgusting,” Christine Vollmer, president of the Latin American Alliance for the Family as well as a founding member of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, told LifeSiteNews at that time. She said it was “obvious” that the only way Paglia could commission such a work while being promoted to influential Vatican posts was by having “high-ranking protection at the Vatican.” Mercedes Arzú Wilson, president of Family of the Americas and also a founding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said it was “incomprehensible” that Pope Francis would appoint Paglia to such influential posts. Mullarkey said that a “scandal” of this caliber goes all the way to the top. “What business does this indiscreet, sex-happy man—put plainly, a creep—have to do with marriage and the family? What do his continued appointments, coming as they have in the wake of his billboard-sized disclosure, say about his boss?” she wrote. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v...ed-mural-reveals-an-indiscreet-sex-happy-manp
And people still think this pope can be strong and orthodox on homosexuality, pedophilia, marital continence etc when POPE FRANCIS personally appointed him to the Pontifical Academy of Life, and the St. John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family, both of which Paglia has destroyed with demonic efficiency?!?
MarieLou, Davidtlig, Fallensaint, where are you when the pope needs you? Mercy , love, forgiveness, kumbaya, liberation theology, left-wing politics, blah, blah, blah
Debate over Francis is fine, but we don’t need a revolution Fr. Dwight Longenecker March 15, 2017 CRUX CONTRIBUTOR Pope Francis salutes as he leaves the St. John in Lateran Basilica after meeting parishioners in Rome, Thursday, March 2, 2017. (Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini.) Vigorous debate over various aspects of Francis's papacy is entirely appropriate, since the Church is a big Italian family and arguing is what they do. However, what we don't need is a revolution along the lines of the Protestant Reformation, which ended with everyone being their own pope. At a church gathering the other day, I quizzed a conservative friend about one of Pope Francis’s latest media bombshells. My friend is a good and cheerful Catholic, but he thought for a moment, then smiled and said, “Every day I pray for the pope…then I ignore him.” His response reflects a growing discontent with Pope Francis in conservative circles. Anti-Trump protesters wave signs reading, “Not My President.” Perhaps conservative Catholics will soon march on the Vatican waving signs reading, “Not My Pope.” The reality is not too far from the fantasy: last month Rome itself was plastered with posters picturing a disgruntled Pope Francis. Written in local Roman dialect, the signs charged that the pope had “removed priests; decapitated the Knights of Malta” and “ignored Cardinals.” The critics are not only wild-eyed right wing conspiracy theorists. Respected journalist Phil Lawler regards Francis’s papacy as “disastrous.” Rod Dreher has joined the chorus of those who not only question Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia’s involvement with a homoerotic mural in a church, but also his appointment by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. Meanwhile, The Times of London has reported rumors that a group of cardinals now regret the election of Francis and want him to resign, and last summer conservative columnist Adam Hall called for the pope’s resignation. Conservative Catholic websites and bloggers criticize the Francis papacy for fostering confusion regarding marriage discipline, being doctrinally fuzzy, unpredictable and autocratic. They accuse him of promoting the gay agenda, praising Protestants, downplaying doctrine in favor of political correctness, and being more worried about saving the environment than saving souls. Is the criticism justified? Can you be a faithful Catholic and criticize the pope? If you’re unhappy with a pope should you fire up your fingers, tap out some scorching criticism, take to the internet highway, Facebook, Tweets and the streets? Should unhappy Catholics stop fuming and start marching while waving “Not My Pope!” signs? I think not, and here’s why. We should ask what protests actually accomplish. When there is true oppression and dictatorship, a grassroots revolution sometimes works. The Solidarity movement in Poland and the “soft revolutions” in Eastern Europe which helped bring down communism were effective. However, history shows us that most protest movements are either ineffectual or destructive. The protest rarely brings about regime change, and often only brings resistance, reinforcement and further repression by the powers that be. Furthermore, the dialectic of protest is not the Catholic way. It might work in certain political circumstances, but the Catholic path is not one of revolution, but reform. A good historical comparison is between St. Francis and Martin Luther. Both men were sincere in their love for Christ and his gospel, and both men were faced with a church led by men who were corrupt, venal and immoral. Luther protested and brought about a terrible schism. St. Francis re-built and renewed Christ’s church through evangelical poverty, humility and the fiery infilling of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean conservative critics should simply shut up, pray, pay and obey. The church is a big Italian family, and big Italian families have noisy arguments. Debate and disagreement in the church is nothing new, and although it feels bad, it is not always destructive. In the cut and thrust of vigorous argument, new viewpoints are often opened up and fresh ways forward are discovered. Conservative critics should speak their minds with reason and respect, and they should be heeded. Pope Francis is clearly no Pope St. John Paul II, nor has he the intellectual acumen and accomplishment of Benedict XVI, but he brings other gifts and capabilities to his office. His simplicity, heart for the poor and obvious devotion to the gospel is inspiring and genuine. He’s the pope, and all Catholics should honor and respect his historic office even if they have sharp disagreements with his personal policies and preferences. If some Catholics are not huge fans of Pope Francis is that such a bad thing? There were plenty of Catholics who were not keen on John Paul II and Benedict XVI. So what? If Catholics are unhappy with their pope, it might be a sign that they were investing too much in the pope in the first place. The office of the papacy is vital to the Catholic Church, but Christ’s church is bigger than the papacy, and it is certainly bigger than any man who occupies the office. Discontent with a particular pope might just have the salutary effect of re-focussing their devotion to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Pope Francis himself has downplayed the dominance of the papacy, and tried to shift our attention to the task at hand in our own parishes. We should listen to his advice. A bit less of an obsession with the pope and the politics of the Vatican might help Catholics focus on their call to roll up their sleeves, preach the gospel and do the work of God where they are with what they have. Maybe we need less worry about the pope and more worry about our needy neighbor. Maybe we should read our Bibles more than the internet gossip about the pope, bishops and cardinals. Maybe there should be less paranoia and more prayer. Finally, for those who would cry “Not My Pope!” the stark question arises, “If this is not your pope, who is?” This was the dilemma that faced the Protestant revolutionaries. When they got rid of the pope they didn’t like, they had to choose another authority. When they got rid of the pope, they didn’t have no pope. They became their own pope. https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/03/15/debate-francis-fine-dont-need-revolution/
Pope Leo XIII: "The worst kind of heretic is the one who, while teaching mostly true Catholic doctrine, add a word of heresy, like a drop of poison in a cup of water" “The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas”
This is so true. This is how the modernists operate. 99% Catholic teaching, 1% deadly poison. That is why it is so hard to combat this. It "sounds" Catholic to many, especially the uncatechized. Sadly, for the past 50 years the Church has stopped teaching the the faith to children for the most part.
SgCatholic, if that picture in your post above is part of the disgraceful mural talked about. Three things jumped out at me looking at it. None of em good. One the art is average school level work, why would it be good enough to be put in a Cathedral. Two, the Bishop or whatever he is, depicted in the mural seems to have no sense of dignity or decorum, he comes across as a pervert to me. Three, The man the Bishop is embracing stood out as representing a muslim to me; because of the long black beard. And when I looked again thought how much the black bearded man reminded me of Bin Laden. If the muslims get wind of that they might just do us all a favour and rip the travesty off the wall. And finally I seem to remember reading that one of the scandalous things going on in Sodom and Gomorra when God destroyed those cities was murals depicting sensual nakedness and people in the act of copulation. Children were exposed to those images. And now it seems the hierarchy in the Catholic Church are ok with such cheap tacky art.
...global warming is a sin, stop breeding like rabbits, who am I to judge, traditional catholics are "the church's despicables", hypocrites every other day, certain abortionists are great, blah, blah, blah
Sadly Julia, it is indeed part of the mural being discussed It so blatantly exposes the warped thinking of Archbishop Puglia. I find it so hard to accept that this mural is actually on a cathedral wall
The first time I heard about this mural was on this forum It is still a mystery to me why this abomination is still on the wall in a cathedral in Rome Stomach churning Scary Evil Has anyone made a move to get rid of it? I am heartened to see that folks are waking up and writing up some commentary against this This kind of evil sinful filth has only Been openly sanctioned in society for about the last 25-30 years But in a cathedral ?
This argument doesn't hold. In current times, unlike the times of Martin Luther, every word from the Pope's mouth is reported, tweeted, shared etc around the world. If faithful Catholics do not speak up to point out the errors and heresies in what he says and does, Catholics who are not well catechised (who constitute a large number; and indeed the non-Catholics too) will believe in the lies, and be led down the path to hell. All of us have a duty to proclaim the Gospel truth. Even if it means that we oppose the Pope himself. ("But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! Galatians 1:8) To do anything less will make us 'lukewarm Catholics', who Jesus condemned as being fit to be spat out of His mouth (Rev 3: 15-17). We are not seeking a breakaway from the Catholic church, but a restoration of its faithfulness to the Divine Law.
