Fr. Ray Blake Defends ”The 45” – Torch of The Faith Reflects a Bit

Fr. Ray Blake Defends ”The 45” – Torch of The Faith Reflects a Bit

[Hat-tip to Canon212: “‘Everything he says would repudiate it?’ – On faithful leaders (such as Fr. Ray Blake) who boldly call attention to FrancisChurch (for example: ‘It is especially worrying when the downright heretical are given free range and those who defend what has always and everywhere been held as the Catholic faith are treated with violence. This is not mercy.’) and then smack those who care enough to point out the FrancisProblem”]

Torch of The Faith News on Friday 09 September 2016

* * *

Some Reflections on ”Holding Your Tongues”

Perhaps it is this desire to defend the Church which has led Fr. Blake, like Fr. Hunwicke in his own gallant article on this troubling matter, to attempt to distance the issue of bullying from the person and intentions of Pope Francis.

As well as being clear from the words of his concluding sentence, this attempt comes through very strongly in Fr. Blake’s firm response to a comment that had been made by a lady called Ana Milan.

It appears clear from comments that Ana Milan has left on other sites in recent months that she is both a faithful and spirited defender of the One True Faith. In times like this, we could do with a few more like her.

At Fr. Blake’s site, Ana suggests: ”As you say, this is violence in action, but I doubt that those responsible would attempt it without the knowledge and consent of Pope Francis. Someone knows who it is but again silence enables them to continue in their wickedness.”

To this comment, Fr. Blake firmly replies: ”Ana, I think many lieutenants go beyond what their boss says, I doubt that there is evidence to suggest that HH supports such violent abusive behaviour, on the contrary everything he says would repudiate it.”

Further on, in block capitals, Fr. Blake concludes: ”PLEASE, NO ATTACKS ON HIS HOLINESS I HAVEN’T TIME TO DELETE THEM.”

Clearly, like so many orthodox priests these days, Fr. Blake is in a very difficult position. As I have already said above, he deserves credit, support and prayers for his defence of the Faith and of the faithful.

That Being Said

That being said, I do wonder whether such a firm approach tends to put the ”smack down” on the laity who, still feeling giddy from so many of the Church-shaking words and actions of Pope Francis, are doing what they can to both keep the Faith and defend it from such an unprecedented crisis.

It can leave the faithful feeling stung and demotivated to receive a reply like that. They can feel that they are being perceived as extremists, when in fact it is those launching a co-ordinated attack on faith and morals who are the real extremists.

So often, we have seen lay people standing up for persecuted clergy, only to find themselves hoisted from their own petard when such men begin to take the side of their own oppressors against them. It has happened to us on occasion. It seems to be a peculiar and disorienting phenomenon in these times when the enemy of souls is causing so much widespread division and disunity. The result of such actions is to make lay people more circumspect in standing up for them in the future. And so, the problem increases and spreads.

Clearly, Fr. Blake’s intentions should not be included in this category. He is doing his best not to add to any divisions by his efforts to distance Pope Francis from the mysterious ”bullies” alluded to by both him and Fr. Hunwicke.

Such an attempt can be gathered by his suggestion that everything Pope Francis says would ”repudiate” such violent and abusive behaviour.

The General or the Lieutenants?

I wonder though, is that really the case with ”everything” that Pope Francis says? If so, what are we to make of his consistent and demoralizing complaints about ”fundamentalist Catholics”?

Then again, we need not look so far; for Fr. Blake himself acknowledges the issue of the silencing of the 13 cardinals in his own gathering of examples of people who have been bullied into holding their tongues.

Yet, this widely reported example of people being bullied into silence did not come from any of Pope Francis’ lieutenants, but from Pope Francis himself. And strongly too.

Perhaps without realizing it, Fr. Blake also ends up telling the faithful to hold their tongues too.

Unite and Advance

In our own reflections on the persecution of ”The 45” earlier this week, we reflected: ”Rather than being forced into disunity and retreat, orthodox Catholics need to do what liberals have managed for decades: unite and advance! This is the only way to preserve the Church from people who, let’s say it as it is, don’t even hold remotely Catholic beliefs.”


Pope Francis and/or his appointed men facilitated the manipulations surrounding the press releases, working documents, attendee lists and unorthodox content of much in Synods ’14 and ’15.

Pope Francis issued Amoris Laetitia with all of its putatively heretical ambiguities and chose Cardinals Baldisseri and Schoenborn to release it to the general public.

In so doing, Pope Francis ignored the very public requests of the 879,451 faithful in the Filial Appeal and the 500 priests in the Synod Letter; as well as the much more private requests of the 13 Cardinals at the Synod. More recently, the 45 scholars, theologians and pastors have found themselves similarly ignored.

It was Pope Francis who enabled the Kasper-proposal, appointed Baldiserri to run the Synods and created the overall atmosphere in the Church which has thus enabled ”the downright heretical to have free range”; whilst ”those who defend what has always, and everywhere and at all times been held as being the Catholic faith” now find themselves being ”treated with violence.”

And it was Pope Francis who either put the lieutenants who are carrying out this present ”violence” into their positions of power; or at the very least it is Pope Francis who is not preventing them from carrying out this ”violence” now that it is out in the open for all to hear about.

If all of this were not so, we would not even be having this conversation…

Get AQ Email Updates

3 comments on “Fr. Ray Blake Defends ”The 45” – Torch of The Faith Reflects a Bit

  1. Compare intimidation of Catholics under Francis to intimidation of police under Obama. Has Obama said it’s OK to shoot cops and burn down businesses? No, he has said the opposite. Has he approved the grievances of the violent black lives matter groups? Yes. How do we square the two? The answer is that chaos triumphs whenever the authority gives a nod to lawlessness, no matter his words defending lawfulness. Obama is responsible for burning Furguson, MO, and Baltimore. Likewise Francis is responsible for intimidation of the faithful, especially by his words, and his actions against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.


    by StumblingBlock ⋅ 9/11/16

    Faithful English pastor Fr. Ray Blake was identified in the blogosphere as a target of some pressure since he was silent for an extended period on his very sophisticated website. Fr. Blake is often critical, in a brilliant yet indirect and qualified way, of some of the faithless initiatives of FrancisChurch. When Father returned after his hiatus to condemn mafia-like tactics in the Church, a reader noted that it is likely the Pope was behind them to an extent. To this Father responded that ‘nothing Francis has said’ would indicate that, then he blasted the commenter for libelous talk.

    Message: I’ll do the judgment making, the discerning, and the risk-taking. You just do the listening, layman.

    This is the kind of thing that happens in Mafia-like wards too. Father’s readers understand this. They know that he now has lied and compromised his principles in order to protect himself. After all it’s true, he is the one who has taken the risk and is receiving the pressure, not the readers. They are under no threats or correction from anyone in this situation, while it is likely he is.

    Nevertheless, the fault stands. A faithful resistance cannot be built upon half-measures, arrogance, lies, and capitulation. It simply won’t work.

    And this isn’t unique. All of our heroes seem to lay down when the Francis-boom lands. (That must be what the nuBenedict means when he says Francis is a good governor?) We have similar problems in the faithful U.S. media too. We scuttle out like mice or little puppies to do our damage, then run hiding when the man comes around. It’s really a money issue. However, the money behind FrancisChurch hurts a lot worse than a rolled-up newspaper.

    I’m hearing lately that we need to stifle these bubbling doubts about Francis actually being the pope. Ann Barnhardt maintains that he is an anti-pope since he resigned under an erronious dual-pope understanding. Benedict felt that he would continue as sort of a contemplative co-pope, therefore his abdication is invalid. Louie Verrecchio and Antonio Socci both make the same case without coming to final conclusions. There is also the issue of pressure, something which would naturally be hard to clearly prove. Finally, there’s that St. Gallen group: the existence of an illegal and organized movement of cardinals to install Francis prior to and outside the conclave.

    All of these considerations have merit. As Cardinal Brandmuller has reminded, the situation is unprecedented and rife with problems. I do not think it helps to carelessly toss these questions off as disobedient, uncatholic, or hysterical. It’s worse to pretend they don’t matter at all and that we should just get past them. As with Fr. Blake’s readers, the faithful understand when they’re being corralled and of course, though we are sheep in the Lord’s flock, we are still nonetheless men.

    ‘Sure, ‘maybe’ Francis is a heretic but that’s happened before, and it’s not for us to say.’ We get this message often too. How many ‘maybes’ must we suffer through? Hundreds of years ago a pope was deposed for the heresy of permitting a nation to select it’s own bishops. That’s good, but what we have here today is about 186 times worse. At what point may we make a conclusion of our own about the situation? Should we wait until gay sex is a sacrament, or continue to pray and be docile?

    My position on the abdication has always been the same. Benedict appears to have left under pressure but it’s a difficult thing to prove. The most powerful indicators are the fact that a worldly prince and a heretic was selected to follow him, and that he appears to be under some type of confinement and control today. Francis is the kind of man who would follow a putsch, and this nuBenedict we keep seeing via third party does not sound anything like himself. Instead he seems poorly scripted, muddled, and much more like Tucho Fernandez than Ratzinger.

    “Your friendship is the air that I breathe and in which I live?” Wasn’t it something like that the Emeritus said to the Francis on his 65th anniversary?

    Whether Benedict was forced out or his abdication invalidated for any other reason, a fact I believe is not unlikely, it’s not the most important thing when it comes to the papacy today. The main issue is that Francis has clearly demonstrated his heresy, and as faithful laymen it is our responsibility to call for his abdication. He is not able to defend the faith, priesthood, or Sacraments, or to canonize saints, or do any of the things absolutely necessary to preserve the Church. It doesn’t matter whether he’s pope or not. He should not be pope. He has shown us he is, in fact, incapable of it.

    While we continue to resist the faithless wreckage of FrancisChurch, I put the onus on those who know for certain that Francis is pope to prove it. I don’t advocate calling Francis an anti-pope, but I don’t see any reason to pretend that it couldn’t be the case.

    As a compromise, it might be better for Francis to do what Benedict did: retreat to pray for humanity as a contemplative papal element, where he can give gushing interviews and bask in the friendship of an actual Catholic pope.

    Wait. I guess that would be ridiculous.

    • Benedict makes a stunning admission

      Louie Verrecchio September 9, 2016

      Pope Benedict resigned freely. How do we know this? He said so himself.

      In a recently published excerpt from his new book, Last Testament: In His Own Words, he said:

      It was not a retirement made under the pressure of events or a flight made due to the incapacity to face them. No one tried to blackmail me. I would not have allowed it. If they had tried, I would not have gone because it is not right to leave when under pressure.

      So there; that settles it.

      Even so, just for fun, let’s apply some common sense and logic to this most unprecedented of situations.

      Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical scenario wherein a reigning pope really does offer his resignation under pressure; i.e., the act is not freely made and therefore invalid.

      Now, is this scenario too farfetched to even bother considering, as some might suggest?

      Obviously not; in fact, the Code of Canon Law (332 §2) addresses precisely this possibility, and so we have to conclude that it is not too farfetched to consider.

      Moving on then…

      Here’s the scenario:

      – A reigning pope is threatened with an ultimatum; something like, “Either take your leave, or we will fill in the blank.”

      – Three years later, this pope grants a book length interview.

      – During the interview, he is asked whether or not he was blackmailed into resigning.

      OK, now dust off your common sense and logic and tell me: What do you think this “former” pope is going to say?

      There are only two possible ways of answering the question:

      1. Yes, I was blackmailed by fill in the blank. They threatened to fill in the blank if I didn’t resign.

      – Or –

      2. No, I was not blackmailed. I would never succumb to such a thing.

      QUESTION: Does anyone in their right mind really believe that the “former” pope in such a scenario is going to give answer #1, thus inviting fill in the blank to make good on precisely the threat that caused him to flee in the first place?

      Clearly, one would have to abandon common sense and logic entirely in order to believe that the answer is yes.

      While one is left with nothing more than speculation when it comes filling in the blanks, the reality of the matter is simply this:

      Reason alone tells us we cannot know for certain whether or not a papal resignation was forced based upon the words of the pope-resignee alone. (Cardinal Walter Brandmüller recently made precisely this point.)

      Even so, I have no doubt that the majority of Catholics will consider the matter utterly and entirely settled; taking their rest in the illogical supposition, Benedict resigned freely, he said so himself.

      To these I would propose the following:

      If Benedict’s words tell us all that we need to know, then we must admit that all of his words have a story to tell; not just the ones that resonate with what we want to believe.

      With this in mind, let’s consider what else Benedict had to say.

      A stunning admission

      In the Declaratio of 11 February 2013, he said:

      However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

      So, he resigned because of what he considered his “incapacity” to face certain unnamed “questions of deep relevance” that were before the Church as he spoke – the same that needed to be “adequately” addressed by someone more capable “in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter.”

      Simple enough, right?

      And yet, in his new book, he says:

      “It was not a retirement made under the pressure of events or a flight made due to the incapacity to face them.”

      Wait a minute? Did he resign “due to the incapacity to face” the unnamed “questions” before the Church such as they were in February 2013; in light of “the pressure” brought to bear by those then current “events” – or not?

      Look, if you wish to hang your hat on Benedict’s words, by all means, have at it, but please don’t embarrass yourself by suggesting that his words put the matter to rest when, in fact, the exact opposite is true!

      The man is plainly saying, I did not resign for the reasons I gave in the Declaratio.

      If Benedict hasn’t raised enough red flags already, get this.

      After having stated, “Practical governance is not my strong point and this is certainly a weakness,” Benedict went on to say of Francis:

      He was an archbishop for a long time, he knows the trade. He was a superior of Jesuits and has the ability to put his hands to action in an organized way. I knew that this was not my strong point.

      OK, so he knew that organized action wasn’t his strength. Fair enough, but doesn’t his manner of speaking suggest that he also knew for whom he was stepping aside; namely, this Jesuit who supposedly had just such an ability?

      It sure sounds that way to me.

      At another point, Benedict says of Bergoglio’s election:

      No one expected him. I knew him, naturally, but I did not think of him. In this sense it was a big surprise. I did not think that he was in the select group of candidates.


      Catholic journalist Paul Baade, who is very well known in the German speaking world and almost certainly by Ratzinger who claims to be a “newsy,” had written all the way back in 2005 about the St. Gallen’s group (or what Cardinal Danneels bragged about being a “mafia club”) that strove to place Jorge Bergoglio in the Chair of Peter.

      Are we to believe that Benedict never heard of such a thing?

      Furthermore, while it remains speculation, it has been widely reported that Jorge Bergoglio was the runner-up to Cardinal Ratzinger in the 2005 conclave. Heck, even George Weigel (who is rather close to Ratzinger) concedes that Bergoglio “took the silver medal” in that conclave.

      And yet, Benedict is at pains to make us believe that the Argentinian Jesuit never crossed his mind in 2013?

      The Pope Contemplatus doth protest too much, methinks, but you can decide for yourself.

      Before you do, however, consider these perplexing words:

      In fact, thanks to God, I was in a peaceful state of soul, of one who has overcome the difficulty — the state of soul in which you can tranquilly pass the helm to who comes next.

      What exactly is “the difficulty” he needed to overcome?

      Apparently, it wasn’t the difficulty of admitting his incapacity to face the Church’s issues as he once claimed; that he already confirmed. So what was it?

      He doesn’t tell us, but what he does say is that he left the papacy, thus rendering the See of Rome vacant, only to be filled with the “big surprise” election of Jorge Bergoglio.

      And yet, he speaks of tranquilly passing the helm to who comes next?

      What really happened here: Did Benedict “pass the helm” to Jorge, or did the conclave pick a surprise successor?

      Make of it what you will, but let’s be clear folks: Popes don’t “pass the helm” otherwise known as the papacy to anyone under any circumstances. Non e’ come la cosa nostra lavora – that’s not how this thing of ours works.

      In conclusion, if you take anything at all away from this most recent round of contradictory nonsense and intrigue from the lips of the so-called “Pope Emeritus,” make it this:

      Like it nor not, Benedict has plainly admitted that the reason he gave for resigning on 11 February 2013 is not the truth; i.e., he acted as he did for reasons he is either unwilling, or feels unable, to reveal.

      If that strikes you as a resignation “made freely,” you may want to avoid operating heavy machinery and handling sharp objects.

Leave a Reply