As violence against Christians in Iraq escalates, most of us welcome the fact that Pope Francis and other churchmen are beginning to speaking out in their defense.
And yet, all of us recognize that something crucial is missing from their rhetoric; namely, the truth about Christ the King and His Holy Catholic Church.
How should we respond to events like the following? How does this relate to the Catholic doctrine of Christ the King?
–
http://m.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=30273
–
An estimated 900 people of the three Abrahamic religions packed the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in downtown Denver Monday night for an interreligious prayer service for those suffering in the Middle East.
–
Fr. Mahanna then asked all those in attendance to clap their hands as a gesture of solidarity in peace and against the gruesome murders and tortures of recent weeks in the Middle East.
–
“Let us clap our hands to make a statement … that the sound of our hands joined together in prayer and in true human love are way stronger and more effective and way more powerful than the sounds of the bombs (ISIS) are using to kill every human being on earth, starting in the Middle East.”
–
Intercessions were then led by religious leaders representing various religions, including Catholic and Orthodox Churches from the Middle East; Protestant and Catholic representatives from Western Christianity; rabbis; and sheikhs and imams.
–
Following the intercessions were readings from the religions’ three holy texts – the Quran, the Pentateuch, and the Gospel – and an address from Archbishop Aquila, who said the test of a true religion is whether it promotes both love of God and of neighbor.
http://gloria.tv/media/DvFiHFPydKY This is a video of these true terrorists burying alive a Syrian man. May the Lord have mercy on his soul. The very stones cry out . . . Blessed Michael . . . The shame of our inaction as the Church is crushing. Reparation!
Vive la République?
—-a few highlights from the above link:
—with 900 people at Immaculate Conception Basilica Denver,the Catholic Archbishop said the test of TRUE religion is whether it promotes both love of God and of neighbor.
— Readings were done aloud from – the Moslem Quran, the Jewish Pentateuch, and the Catholic Gospel.
—The Jewish Rabbi…said the prayer service was an opportunity for people to set biases aside and come together united against violence. An attendee praised it all because there were “no politics, just peace.”
=============
So False religion is now “True” as long as it is shows worldly love, and its books are worthy to be read in a Basilica, and Jesus and His Dogmas are a “bias” that can be set aside in the name of unity and World Peace.
==============
Mikhail Gorbachev promotes the New-Age, New World Order’s “United Religions Initiative”, whose website describes it as:
…. a global network dedicated to promoting enduring daily interfaith cooperation to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice, and healing for the Earth and all living beings.
___
(The one thing not tolerated is Dogma as it divides) Our shepherds are leading the sheep right into this global trap. . War produces such a hunger for Peace that almost anything sounds good, even false world religion that eliminates the Catholic Church and Christ as King.
And the caption reads: “.. because according to the Qur’an who is not a Muslim, not a man”.
“Islam would not be where it is today if the Vatican had not replaced the Gospel with interreligious dialogue.” And this ‘replacement’ is antichrist.
–
There’s not one standing army left on the planet that will defend the Faith and the Faithful. But that was the plan. Remember Montini abdicated the throne of Christ on earth to Tyrants & Co (the UN) which is made up mostly of muslim and communist dictators and tyrants. ‘our churchmen’ are unwilling to preach Christ because they are not of Christ. Bergoglio has taken up the sword of iniquity and attacked the soul of the Church and the souls Christians with a vehemence that should make the Church’s enemies go into a dervish of diabolical delight. No wonder the sword of iniquity preached by Beroglio is now being taken up by satan’s foot soldiers and becoming a viscerally bloody slaughter of the flesh. Bergoglio and his ilk slaughter the soul, the others slaughter the body. Bergoglio is as much an enemy of the Church as the body destroying jihadists – no one should excuse him simply because he sticks to destroying souls which Christ said was worse than destroying the flesh.
–
Pope Pius V did penance, fasting and praying the Rosary for the prevention of the slaughter of Christians. Montini returned the standard of Lepanto – the symbol of Our Lady’s victory of Her enemies. The same montini that Bergoglio will celebrate and make his own hero after the synod. They are all cut from the same cloth and it would fit perfectly on the backs of the jihadists.
dear Michael Leon,
Thank you for this. I know. Repugnant and perniciously disoriented.
Perhaps perseverant and unrelenting correction is one response.
p.s. when i say ‘abdicated’ of course montini, that little rat abondoning ship, could never really do that. So, in the spirit of a true Pope – fast (at least leave off one pastry) and pray a decade or two or three or fifteen of the Rosary that God liberate and elevate, once again, Holy Mother Church. And for those who have forgotten or because of false-popes and other false-shepherds, never knew, GOD IS CHRIST AND CHRIST IS GOD – SOVEREIGN KING OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. Despite the deceitful ‘intellectual’ machinations of modernists, they have never been given any right to preach a severed God and never will, and if they do, that’s a very easy way to know they are false – now those who celebrate jews and muslims as worshipping God is an excellent example.
I think the problem is more basic than episcopal timidity or a desire to be popular. Bergoglio’s embracing of the Q & A format is quite useful. I have another one which could also be addressed to the College of Cardinals and to his predecessor:
“Do you think that more than two centuries of scholarly Biblical criticism has failed to find a single scientific or historical error in any of the 73 books of Sacred Scripture – Yes or No?”
I would also like the answer to be delivered to a secular publication, which of course runs the risk of public ridicule. If that sounds like an imposition, it is not any more humbling than being published in the secular press wearing a clown nose.
Though it would entail a lot more hard work.
The problem is that the Q&A is rigged to never hit upon the Truth – quite the opposite. And they are taking pew-punters’ money to make the ‘opposite’ look apposite.
I thought the article was a parody when I first read it.
–
“Let us clap our hands to make a statement … that the sound of our hands joined together in prayer and in true human love are way stronger and more effective and way more powerful than the sounds of the bombs (ISIS) are using to kill every human being on earth, starting in the Middle East.”
–
Let our statement be … clapping? Like the universal symbol for applause? Who are we congratulating here? Is this ‘the sound of hands joined together in prayer’? Have we entered a Buddhist koan?
–
“Karly Fabian, a Mormon, said the event helped her realize what she can do to promote peace. ‘I liked the part in the song where it said let there be peace, and let it begin with me, that’s kind of what I was focusing on the whole time: ‘Okay how can I be more peaceful?’ she said.”
–
How does one establish peace? By singing songs, of course! Why didn’t the Catholics of Mosul think of that? Maybe they were too busy clapping? Oh, if only someone had taught them to clap while singing!
–
I especially liked the part where the Muslim cleric got up and pronounced a fatwa on all radical Muslims. Oh, wait….
Perhaps this is not the most charitable treatment of Church officials.
I know a Catholic who specializes in Islam and counter-Islamic apologetics who told me about the time when Benedict XVI made some comments about Islam which resulted in violence increasing against Christians.
What if the Church officials want to both condemn the actions of ISIS but at the same time not be the cause of any further suffering? Christ says we need to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Being wise means recognizing that ISIS are not the type of people you can reason with and present the Gospel and urge to convert. Any reasonable person free from the pride we see on the reactionary Catholic sites will know it would only hurt those Catholics even more.
ISIS rather are the type of people that can only be killed and destroyed. That is the only way to deal with people like that. To kill them.
Dear salvemur
Once again you hit the nail right on the head in writing:
“There’s not one standing army left on the planet that will defend the Faith and the Faithful” So true. This fact hit us squarely in the face, after studying the Crusades and other past papal calls to defense, when there was a “Christendom” to call upon.
___
Again the only answer is the call of Our Lady of Fatima, to continue to pray and make sacrifices for the Conversion of Russia, (as we continue to denounce the errors of false prophets being presented to the faithful for belief these days). We may get a council to fix things, but it likely will only happen after that is done, as she warned, “Only I can help you” God sent her with that mission..
___
Russia is designated by God to chastise the world as long as Our Lady’s requests are not heeded; but also to save it, once consecrated. We see before us the “locusts” of the book of Revelations, serving the “exterminator” their leader from the bottomless pit. God is punishing the world, by letting the enemies we failed to “proselytize”, come against us. Only that miracle will bring the Peace, because Christ the King must be whom we ALL serve–not a false god who MURDERS those who don’t serve Allah “who has no associates”.
___
Peace will not come from ecumenical desecrations of Basilicas with readings from the Qua’ran and Jewish scrolls polluting God’s word. Russia will be converted and lead the world back to Christendom. Our Lady is the true prophet of these times, sent by God, and she spoke His words to us.
John XXIII sealed them up, rejected her as a false prophet of “doom and gloom”
and now we are reaping the bitter fruits of those actions, as false remedies and false teachings continue to be proposed to what is left of the flock. We must continue to resist and denounce them..
___
. Gorbachev, of perestroika fame, hailed by the West for decades as the champion of democracy, suddenly shocked everyone this year, when Putin annexed Crimea, by calling this a time for great joy as the “will of the Russian people” has spoken, and they have freely chosen to return Mother Russia. (Ukraine’s sovereignty is meaningless ) (One article naively said he just “misunderstands” the meaning of democracy.)
___
They don’t get it, that as long as god is the “cosmos” as he claims, world domination is still the New-Age goal of all the unity for peace movements especially the World Government this Pope seeks, under the New World Order, with one “religion” (minus all talk of disuniting dogma).
____
Nicole -your charity is fearless.
–
Christ (God for those ill-informed) reminds us that the soul is more important than the flesh even though the flesh is of such importance that Gnostics would want to crawl into a hole and rock there way into insantiy.
–
How long are our little lives? How long is eternity? How big is God (the Father-Son-Holy Ghost), the Holy Trinity, Soveriegn Creator of Heaven (immeasurably beyond all pathetic human conceptions thereof) and earth (and all pathetic adamic conceptions thereof)?
Islam is a false diabolic cult which persecutes with death all who say what I just said. The modernate muslims won’t say what I said, because they either do not believe it, or because they fear to say it. Remember, there is no concept of forgiveness in Islam: to confess that one has committed a mortal sin against the twistied morality of the Koran, is to invite public execution or at least execution of the next Koranic vigilante (Jihadist)…
We must speak up, and we ought not mince words!
Human civilization will only survive Islam when the Koran is banned, the Mosques are closed down and the Immams are imprisoned. Its an entirely evil inhuman system, not to mention false diabolic religion.
Better not even to call it a religion: its a cult or superstition.
And if some folks cannot stomach the fact that their ancestors were terrorized into accepting it, that’s their problem; they cannot threaten the world for telling them the truth.
Dear Nicole,
With due respect for your right to voice your opinion, Jesus sent the apostles with a Mandate to teach and Baptize all nations, telling them they should expect to be HATED just as He was, but not to fear because He had overcome the world.
___
We were never called to “worldly diplomacy”.. You referred to Benedict at Regensberg, where he mentioned that the Qua’rn contradicts itself by teaching both war and peace as a means of spreading Islam, and ironically was pointing out in his speech that day, that we need not use harsh rhetoric in speaking truths like that to one another, as had been done in the past. The press quoted the past words he mentioned, as if he were seconding them. And the violent Islamist reaction just proved the truth of his statements. They need to hear the truth, or they will be lost.
___
. What you propose here, is for the Church to remain gagged in her, just as our leaders have done for the last 55 years, out of fear of setting back “progress” and the media distortions based on a false idea that it will do some greater good. What would that be? The safety of bodies at the expense of souls?. What could be worse than the loss of eternal life that has resulted from over half a century of following that policy, to the many souls Our Lady assured us are have been going into hell–which is the cause of her grief?
___
The results of that “gagging : evil gained the upper hand, Christendom has been almost totally annihilated… an utter failure. Russia was promised that kind of silence regarding condemning Communism, in exchange for allowing more freedom of participation in Vatican II and less repression. Results again, disastrous for the Faith, as atheism was spread everywhere. The average Russian woman has 8 abortions in her lifetime..
The time for such compromises is long gone. Our Lady of Fatima’s requests were denied for the same reason. It’s time to end that , and do as God directed us to do through her.
___
70,000 people witnessed the miracle on Oct 13, 1917 which confirmed the validity of her apparitions. Nothing in recent Church history matches the enormity of that, except the enormity of the tragedy that has resulted from ignoring her request to Consecrate Russia By Name. How can any Pope or diplomat or person working in apologetics, know better than God and The Blessed Mother, what is best for the Church and the salvation of souls? And what will it take for them to look around and realize it didn’t WORK?
Amen!
@Bert or anyone else who inquired as to how to start a Forum. It’s Easy.
___
1. Click on Forum at the very top right of this page –or on the Green Forum Box near the top at the right–either will do..
2. After reading Louie’s ,•Read before posting,
3. click on one of the 5 main groupings available that best fits your subject:.
•All Things Catholic
•His Holiness Pope Francis
•Second Vatican Council
•Sacred Liturgy
•General Discussion–for any other topics
___
4. once in, scroll down to the bottom of the page. Three fill-spaces are there.
5. Post your comments in the large center space.
6-7. Pop any Title you want in the small space above it, and any subtitles or related words in the small space below it.
8. Submit. and you’re done.
This one is less graphic, but shows the fierce intensity of the programmed young boys, and the fear in the American experts who have never experienced such brutal calls for death and desire to publicly execute.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/13/peters-islamic-state-most-brutal-force-ive-ever-seen/
Indignus Famulus,
I see! I thought you meant start a forum WEBSITE, not start a simle forum thread in the forum SECTION of this very site.
Thanks for the tips.
Maybe, since you have researched the matter much more than I, you could open a topic on false apparition and share your findings so that others can benefit from them and engage in a constructive critical comparation of sources and opinions?
Qui tacet consentire videtur has been used throughout the legal world and that of the Church for centuries. I thought it inappropriate for the UN observer of the Holy See to approve of the bombing in Iraq. It is not for the Church to approve, but rather to disapprove if immoral. When faced with the problem of choosing a lesser evil, to avoid a greater one, silence is the appropriate choice. The Church must disapprove if the action is unjust. No one needs the Church to approve of an unfortunate choice between these two evils. There are many who stand and offer supportive words for the refugees in the halls of all governments and so they should. Governments have the responsibility collectively to protect innocence no matter where it is attached. As for me, I would have hoped that by now the Pope would have formed a commission to start the work of protecting the refugees and find a safe haven for them. I might have thought that all the bishops would become involved to support them, the most ancient and venerable Christians among us. By now Catholic Charities all over the world should have focused and funneled resources to the refugees. We are not impotent! As we encourage the nations of the world to take action, the Church should lead the way with all the resources at Her disposal. It is time for action! Words lost their force a long time ago.
(This is only one writer’s opinion, but it’s interesting)
VATICAN NOW ENDORSES AMERICANS HITTING BACK AT ISIS, AND ISSUES ULTIMATUMS TO PARTNERS IN “DIALOGUE”
“.The Vatican…in.a sharp reversal said “the American strikes are “something that had to be done, otherwise [the Islamic State forces] could not be stopped.” … (link below): “The events of the last few weeks outstripped the pacifist approaches preferred by the Holy See, “‘Give peace a chance’ .. as foreign policy it doesn’t quite do the trick.”
___
“The concern, .. was that a green light could get portrayed as a call for a new CRUSADE….put many other Christian minority communities in Muslim-dominated nations…more at risk than they are now.
— The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, which normally issues anodyne blessings….called on Muslim leaders to condemn the “barbarity” and “unspeakable criminal acts” in Iraq, saying a failure to do so would jeopardize the future of interreligious dialogue. “All must be unanimous in condemning unequivocally these crimes and must denounce the invocation of religion to justify them,” the statement said. Otherwise… What credibility would remain to the interreligious dialogue patiently pursued in recent years?”
___
” . running out of patience with its ecumenical Muslim partners.. The Vatican. attempt to “cash in on 50 years of ecumenical outreach”…demanding some investment. …it’s time to see whether …these have just been empty gestures all along. if, after decades of engagement these leaders cannot bring themselves to condemn the forced conversion, beheadings, ethnoreligious cleansing and flat-out genocides of ISIS, then it leaves very little value in continued engagement….
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/12/vatican-military-action-against-isis-is-probably-necessary/
Dear rcaamo,
The Vatican is also a city-state, and therefore responsible for the protection of it’s citizens, like any government. Even if it dares not consider the entire Catholic population of the world it’s citizens, for fear of reprisals from the main power-grids in Europe and Asia in an historical throwback to times past, it still has reason to see the stopping of this barbarity as necessary to preventing an attack on the Vatican itself. These guys mean business. (see Lynda’s link in #2 above, –but not if you suffer from recurring nightmares, it’s unforgettable barbarism)
Dear Bert,
We’d rather stick with more credible ones–like the approved Fatima and Akita apparitions, and dabble a bit in those of some Saints. But even that is risky, because they could be tampered with over the years, not being carefully protected by the Church. The currently popular one of St. Francis, has more legitimacy because it was published and seems to have remained unchanged. Yet, there always has to be room for doubt if unapproved officially. Those are not something we should allow to influence our judgment too much, unless or until they appear to be perfectly realized–the proof of true prophecy..
____
Regarding false ones, there may be some risk there in getting some easily influenced people too interested in them. So we’d rather stick to denouncing them when and if they come up in conversations.
But by being silent and not denouncing them as false and dangerous, we risk, nay, guarantee millions being obfuscated by their diabolical deceptions, such in the case of Medjugorje.
On the topic of frauds and tampering, I personally believe Fatima’s revealed Third Secret is completely fake, and the Sister Lucia appearing in public post 1959 was merely an actress.
This can suffragated by abundant circumstantial evidence, such as wildly different facial features, contradictions in her statements, her apparent age, and so on.
You may have valid point there about the false ones, however, because we rejected them so early on, we don’t have a lot of first hand knowledge of them, which might make it difficult to be effective in monitoring a forum. We’ll give it some more thought, though, and see if we could manage the research time that would be required to do a good job of that.
They better make their move for it is the Christians today, but it will be the Muslims tomorrow. Isis does not discriminate on the basis of religión.
Is there no balm in Gilead?
Jeremiah 8:22
For anyone who is still tempted to believe that Mohameddans and Christians worship the same God, check out the testimony of the son of one of the founding members of Hamas, Mosab Yousef, who converted to Christianity after much soul searching and witnessing first hand the barbaric nature of true Islam. After his conversion and having worked as a double agent for the Israeli security services for 10 years he left Palestine for fear of his life and and is now residing in the US.
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHl11S5GsSo
–
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone speak so clearly and forcefully against Islam as Mosab Yousef.
–
When asked whether Islam and Christianity worship the same God, he is emphatic in his answer: “ABSOLUTELY NOT” (@ 7:35).
He will know better than most of us.
Dear In Hoc Signo ,
THANK YOU This video is absolutely riveting.
We would love to know in his 6 years of studying religions, if he was exposed to the Catholic Faith. There is one line we caught, where he talks about Christianity as a philosophy and not a supernatural thing, but it’s unclear if he understands what that means, as he seems to go on and contradict that idea when speaking of Jesus as His Lord and Savior–a bit confusing, but it seems to have been what transformed his thinking. His coming into friendship with Jewish families, completely forgiving his torture by the Jews in prison, plus realizing Hamas and the Palestinians were doing the same things the Jews were for different reasons, and that Islam is a false religion with a false image of God who only exists in their minds–makes it all MUST see.
He’s trying to convert the Muslims by making the book free for them.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
–
Unfortunately, he did not convert to Catholicism. He is now (or at least recently was) attending an evangelical church somewhere in southern california (the place is no secret, I can’t remember right now but it had one of those weird names). At any rate, it is abundantly clear he has fully rejected Islam both as an ideology and religion. I agree with you that he does seem to give the impression (especially if you also view his multiple other interviews on YouTube) of considering Christianity more of a philosophy than a supernaturally revealed religion. But he did undergo baptism (assuming it was done under the traditional formula), so I still think he is worthy of the name Christian. And rejecting Islam considering his background and roots is meritorious indeed.
Please sign the petition to Stop the Synod on the Family at the Remnant.
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/915-stop-the-synod
–
Normally I am not one to endorse petitions, but this is a critical time in Church history and me must not remain silent.
+ + +
From the article by Christopher Ferrara
–
The Crisis of the Synod on the Family
–
Over the next two months the microbes of the neo-Modernist rebound infection that is the “Francis effect” will be moving rapidly toward the site of what could be a devastating flare-up of the infection: the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. First they came for the Roman Rite, which they destroyed. Then they came for the Church Militant, which they disarmed and surrendered to the spirit of the age. Now, at the Synod, which threatens to become Vatican II rebooted, progressivist bishops and their apparatchiks will be coming for the moral law itself under the guise of a search for “pastoral solutions” to “challenges facing the family”—more of the seditious slogans by which the ideology of Vatican-II-ism has eclipsed the doctrines of the Faith.
@Indignus famulus – it looks like you are the only person on here who is not blinded by rudeness and pride and thus the only one I may be able to dialogue with. Seriously, I’m happy for people to aggressively disagree with me, as you have done Indignus , but Indignus let me ask you, do you think these other people achieve by being rude in their comments to those like myself who disagree with them? Food for thought.
–
@Indignus famulus – Moving on. Agreed that the Gospels say to Baptize all nations. ‘I know’ that ‘you know’ that as I Catholic ‘I know’ that. It’s holy writ.
–
However, let me ask you this a few things. Firstly, have you ever dialogued *successfully* with many Muslims? If so, was it because you used language you knew would be offensive to them in order to convince them they were wrong? Here is an analogy. a Fundamentalist Protestant comes up to you and says: Why are you part of a cult that engages in idolatry and follows the Tradition of men. Are you going to be angry and not even consider this guy seriously, be angry and tell them off for being wrong or would you remain peaceful and kindly show them their error? I think most people would just not take such a person seriously and be offended. However if said Fundamentalist says: ‘You know, I do not see why Catholics pray to Saints, I dont mean to offend you but I believe its not supported by the Bible. Could you explain to me why they do that’? Jesus said be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Being wise in this situation is recognising that the Muslims are going to reject what we say if we come across as rude. However if we charitably try and show them why we disagree with them and then present the Gospel to them in a way were we show we are not trying to offend them but rather explain why we believe they are wrong it is a humble way of then giving them the opportunity to reject or accept the Gospel.
–
Do you honestly believe that that calling Muslims names which may be technically correct but they find offensive is going to get them to consider their errors? Mate its just going to re-affirm their dislike for Christians. You need to make them think.
–
Another error I think you make is to equate ISIS with those *we* need to convert. The Holy Spirit converts. We just present the Gospel. That does not mean however we need to send messages of conversion where we know its already been rejected. The people here clearly have no idea what ISIS really is. This is not a group that you can talk with or dialogue with in any way. In this situation we know with absolute certainty that this ultra ultra extremist sect is so extreme they have made up their minds. Our job is therefore to destroy and annihilate them – literally wipe them out. It is of paramount importance that it is noted that this is a very specific situation. You dont just proceed to wipe out sects. But ISIS is one of those rare examples of people who have made their choice beyond clarity and we know with sure certitude you cannot talk or negotiate with them or present the Gospel. Its one of those rare times where the only solution is not for the Pope to present the Gospel to them but rather for people to kill them and wipe them out completely.
OK – to answer the folks who disagree with me, I wish to offer a refutation. The first part is not my refutation but just some preliminary comments and do not form any part of my argument so you do not need to address them, but only my refutation.
–
HERE ARE MY PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
In response to others who have disagreed with me, I think your central error in this discussion of what the Church and Shepherds are doing concerning Islam and Violence is that you are taking it upon yourselves to say what the Church should and should not do. But is it your place and role to so aggressively question how the Shepherds run the Church and how they wish to address Islam. True the Church is not infallible in matters that are merely pastoral, disciplinary and non-dogmatic or non-doctrinal BUT even if how the Church approaches and addresses Islam and its violence is pastorally something the Church may eventually change and consider to be a pastoral and disciplinary error it is for the Shepherds to decide how they wish to conduct the pastoral and disciplary affairs of the Church? You can charitably and respectfully advocate that the Shepherds should consider a different approach but not in the sense that the folks here are doing where you actually say the Pope was wrong in an absolute sense for the approach he and the Shepherds have decided are proper. I refuted this notion of taking it upon yourself to judge the actions of the Shepherds on another post, but for the benefit of those on this post I will post my refutation again which directly now refutes all those on this post who are aggressively criticizing the approach the Vatican is taking on this issue .
–
HERE IS MY REFUTATION – PLEASE MAKE SURE TO QUOTE SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH HERE SO I CAN THEN COUNTER-RESPOND TO DEFEND MY ARGUMENT.
.
The error the folks here are making is that they think themselves able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. Of course, as you know that is a misplaced opinion. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Catholic faith, in which, as you know there are to be distinguished two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme boss – the Pope.
–
The folks here forget that to the shepherds *alone* was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct. On the lay faithful was imposed the dutyy of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their jugment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to be humble and submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the Bishops (the Shepards) to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
–
You folks commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers. Think about it – if inferiors in the government of the Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.
–
Now folks, as I said in another comment in another post, let me just say, I’m happy for you to disagree with me, even strongly as a couple of you did, and even aggressively. I’m cool with that. But just so I can respond back to your counter-responses please make sure to point out directly what part of what I am saying you are disagreeing with. It would actually be helpful for you to re-quote me in your response so I know what exactly you are disagreeing with and what I need to respond to and/or defend.
–
I look forward to our discussion.
Nicole – I wasn’t being rude when I called your charity ‘fearless’ – I meant it – charity should fearlessly stick to Truth or else it’s yet another sappy excuse for the poison of sin.
Regarding the Remnant (and all those trying to live and believe rightly in accordance with Christ and His True Bride) petition to Rome; I understand why – everyone worth of the name Catholic understands why, but the truth is ‘subjectively they have long become genuine schismatics, because they are refusing submission to the man they believe to be the rightful successor of St. Peter.’ If one honestly, truly believes the likes of Bergoglio is the successor of Peter one must believe that the Holy Ghost is governing his words and deeds for the good of the Faithful and for the good of all those who strive for the Faith upon hearing the Gospel. But who in their right Catholic mind could blame the Holy Ghost for such abominable words and deeds? Yes, St Peter was ‘corrected’ by St Paul – but take the full context – there are no contemporary ‘St Pauls’, correcting ‘St Peter’, because these blokes are niether St Pauls nor St Peters; they are children of the father of lies. Oflies o flies = lord of the flies. Formerly called beelzebub.
–
“Among the most vociferous proponents of this schismatic position [read, desperately trying to cleave to Christ whilst at the same time submit to satan (false popes)] we find people like Bp. Richard Williamson, Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX), John Vennari, the people running the Traditio site, and the late “Fr.” Gregory Hesse (Matt and Ferrara are a bit more nuanced and less radical in their endorsement of this position). Other than affirming the legitimacy of the Vatican papal claimants since 1958, there is really nothing these people believe or do that could be characterized as “submitting” to them. They ignore, reject, and explain away the teachings, disciplinary norms, canonizations, and other acts of these “Popes” whenever they deem them to be in contradiction to pre-Vatican II papal teaching. In other words, they submit to some Popes and magisterial acts but not others. The ultimate criterion for truth and error is not the Holy See, but themselves.”
–
In case anyone tries to make an analogy of that reprobate Luther and current Catholics cleaving to Christ, we, unlike Luther, cleave to the Faith, Her entire deposit of Faith – Doctrine, Discipline, Liturgy. Luther overthrew all of these and it is Luther’s version that Bergoglio Incorporated embrace.
–
Any Priests of the authentic Apostolic Body out there, please cease to incorporate the wretchec name of Bergoglio in the Mass which must be appalling to the Truth.
True Priests of the True apostolic body, stop lying about ‘pope francis’ at Mass – you know as well as I that bergoglio/francis is not ‘una cum famulo to Papa nostra…’ He is niether the servant of God nor our ‘father’.
p.s. and this in response to your first comment, since your later comments direct one to submit to the father of lies rather than the Deposit of Faith to whom even a pontiff must submit, meaning that anyone with the Faith knows when a false one presuming to spread the faith is spreading false doctrine.
p.s.s unfortunately it is only those without the faith that do not recognise a false teacher. Therefore, what onus is put upon those with the faith to speak out?
Standing apologies to catholic thinker – any one with enough catholic olfactory senses left will appreciate the following:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/remnant-strategy-francis.htm
i did write ‘ tuo’, but there’s spell check for ya. Like Newchurch, it ‘recognises’ less Latin than I do.
Do you know what’s extraordinary about the cherry-picking of ‘St Peter’ over the last few decades? Is how all that apologists have to call on is the idea of a St Paul correcting a St Peter. How many Catholics could find a single connection between the fake-popes and St Peter who fought the Rabbi’s soldiers? St Peter who recognised Our Lord in His teaching of the Bread and Wine when all else found It repugnant? St Peter when all else saw the waves and thought, how ludicrous to walk on them, whoever we might ‘wishfully think’ is doing so? St Peter who actually ‘deigned’ to weep when he failed Christ and His Word? St Peter (quo vadis) who was willing to return to his physical destruction AT ROME, when holding to and proclaiming the Truth demanded it. St Peter, whose very mission set into motion the miserable physical demise of untold Christians for sake of theirs and our immortal souls. This is the St Peter that IS his successor. Where is he?
So can you point out which of my comments in my refutation are incorrect and say that you should support what you say is the Father of lies? Please ‘re-quote’ the parts of my comments you consider to be in error. I fail to see which parts you disagree with.
I will if you point out which ‘shepherd’ the folks commenting here are failing to submit to?
–
True Faith is the hope that never succumbs to pride – in that its last breath isn’t rage and anger against our Creator, but trust in His Fidelity (nothing to do with the arrogant sin of presumption preached by so many of those claiming to be our shepherds at the moment).
It seems your perception of truth is bound to a falsehood that immortal souls whose core is geared towards Truth are by ‘virtue’ of a big lie, rendered incapable of hearing that Truth. Quite the opposite is True. Thos stepped in a hot lie are better able to taste Truth than those sunk in a tepid falsehood. All this sort of rethoric enables it the lie that Truth packs no punch unless it’s wrapped in sugar and probably dope = ridiculous.
If one is not ‘able’ to speak the truth, would you agree it’s better that they simply shut up? I don’t ever remember Christ or His Apostles teaching that half-truth are ‘wise as serpents’. The ‘wise’ bit means we shouldn’t be more ignorant than satan for cyring out loud.
Salvemur,
don’t confuse the holiness of St. Peter, with the fallibility of men who are elected to the Office of St. Peter’s Successor…
Remember, no Pope is St. Peter “a tutti effetti” — an Italian phrase which means something like “in every respect”….the successor of St. Peter holds his office, but his holiness was a gift of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost and of Christ’s grace throughout his life. For the Successor, I believe the Cardinals are more responsible for electing those whom God has not favored in life, than God is responsible for sanctifying one who has not been faithful.
Can men tempt God? Yes they can, especially when they elect someone who is not holy to be Christ’s Vicar on earth.
We talk much about the lost of the sense of holiness, but what about the loss of the sense of holiness, or of every other sense, by the College of Cardinals.
Woe to them in the hour of their death and on the Day of Judgement, when God the Son, in all His Majesty and flanked by all the Angels and Saints asks them why they voted as they did, and in some cases, why they remained silent in the face of so many scandals, for which they could have offered good and beneficial example if they had only opened their mouth!
The Faith requires that we allow Hope, supernatural Hope, to grow and not oppose it with the horrible sin and vice of despair. If we do not take to heart Christ’s words, “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church”, we will go the way of many schismatics and heretics, who lost Faith in Christ or in the power of His grace to sanctify.
Finally, we can lament all we want on blogs and fora, but who has written or spoken to a Cardinal to ask them to do something about these scandals?
Dear Nicole&all the others,
how can a catholic hope to engage successfully in proselithism (solemn nonsense as per Francis) of muslims when all they have to do is point out to John Paul II kissing the Quran to win the argument?
Or point to Nostra Aetate praising the Moslems and stating they worship the same God as Christians or the recent Imam being not only allowed to pray in the Vatican, but also to call for victory over the infidels (yes you can find the uncensored version of the video).
All these actions are rightfully understood by Moslems as signs of dhimmitude and they just laugh right at our face.
Benedict XVI denying the historicity of some New Testament passages (parts of Matthew and Mark in his book: Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week) doesn’t help either, for one very popular idea in the moslem world is that the original message of Prophet Isa was later altered and the Gospel was corrupted.
The virtually omnipresent beliefs in Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance extending to pretty much everyone , coupled with “who am I to judge” attitude towards their Salvation are the final nails in the proverbial coffin.
Protestants are much more successful instead, because they are not afraid to speak the truth about the abominable sect of Islam, and all the diabolical inspired lies therein. They are also very clear about the Moslems being damned to Hell if they do not accept Jesus Christ as Lord.
Roman Watcher,
It’s “a tutti GLI effetti”.
May I ask, do you believe the Holy Ghost have been guided the Vatican II church’s popes and clergy in the last 60 years?
Do you also believe that if even the Pontifex is unable to hold true to the faith (that would be actually 5 of them) there is any hope that you personally can discern what really is Catholic Faith, alone?
Have your read Pastor Aeternus?
Thanks.
Please DON’T sign the petition to Stop the Synod on the Family at the Remnant UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO RISK LOSING YOUR JOB.
–
I have just discovered that the full name and city, state of those signing this petition are publicly available online at the click of a button. Under these circumstances I would strongly suggest that you NOT sign this petition. I have posted more detailed information on this subject at my blog here:
–
http://publicvigil.blogspot.com/2014/08/please-sign-petition-to-stop-synod-on.html
Dear In Hoc,
This also may sound a bit far-fetched, but the Koran also teaches that lying and deceit are perfectly ok tools to use against infidels. As he talks twice in the video about considering being a double agent in the past, it is not impossible that he is risking his life now, and the wrath of all Muslims, in a rare but effective deceit to win world wide approval as the “bridge” between all warring factions in the world. The Maitreya movement is well known in many religions, and is expecting a man in his 30’s as an avatar of peace, to unite all the religions. Yousef mentioned he studied all religions for 6 years before choosing Christianity for it’s “philosophy”., and not supernatural Grace.
___
He also promoted himself at least two or three times as unique in knowing all the secrets of Hamas, even those hamas members don’t know, as well as thee Jewish secret service. Unconditional Love is the Mantra of the New World Order, and Maitreya awaiters are expecting a Muslim who will be seen as a betrayer because he accepts all religions.
‘But is it your place and role to so aggressively question how the Shepherds run the Church and how they wish to address Islam.’
–
Yes. Given that the Church authorities prior to Vatican II opposed dialogue.
–
‘decide how they wish to conduct the pastoral and disciplary affairs of the Church?’
–
Just because they can decide on the matter does not mean there should be no opposition to the matter. It’s the issue of Saint Paul correcting St. Peter, or St. Catherine of Siena and St. Bridget of Sweden persuading Pope Gregory XI to end the Avignon Papacy, and they were women.
–
‘You can charitably and respectfully advocate that the Shepherds should consider a different approach but not in the sense that the folks here are doing where you actually say the Pope was wrong in an absolute sense for the approach he and the Shepherds have decided are proper.’
–
And now the Vatican supports the bombing of ISIS by the USAF, which means the Vatican have to change directions. Yet the initial position of the posters are still the same. Sorry, but he was wrong on the matter.
–
‘ HERE IS MY REFUTATION – PLEASE MAKE SURE TO QUOTE SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH HERE SO I CAN THEN COUNTER-RESPOND TO DEFEND MY ARGUMENT.
.
The error the folks here are making is that they think themselves able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. Of course, as you know that is a misplaced opinion. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Catholic faith, in which, as you know there are to be distinguished two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme boss – the Pope.’
–
It’s the role of the Watchmen that Christ commands, it’s not going against the authority of the Shepherds, it’s crying alarms. If the Pope were to say that it is raining inside the Vatican today, and it turns out it was not, are you saying no-one should correct him?
–
‘ The folks here forget that to the shepherds *alone* was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct. On the lay faithful was imposed the dutyy of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their jugment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.’
–
If a shepherd commands you, to say for example, give the Eucharist to an openly practicing same-sex couple, or to those who openly advocate abortion, are you to obey even when Canon 915 states otherwise?
–
‘Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to be humble and submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the Bishops (the Shepards) to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor.’
–
There’s nothing humble about it. Humility is knowing your place, not above, nor below. You simply cannot obey Bishops when they command for example contrary to Canon Law.
–
‘You folks commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers.’
–
Were Saints Catherine of Avignon and Bridget of Sweden wrong to issue a judgement upon the Pope? St. Catherine admonished the Pope.
–
‘Think about it – if inferiors in the government of the Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority’
–
Cardinals are inferior to the Pope by hierarchy, yet they influence the Pope to certain degrees.
–
‘, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.’
–
‘“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
St. John Chrysostom’
–
‘“I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.”
St. John Chrysostom, Extract from St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12’
–
‘“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325’
–
‘“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
Saint John Eudes’
–
‘“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4’
–
‘“Augustine says in his Rule: ‘Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger.’ But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4, Sed Contra.’
–
‘“It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great ‘
–
‘“But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’”
Pope Leo XIII’
Naturally we hope he is genuine, but think of the possibilities if he is not. Invitations to world wide functions as the bridge of peace, would get him near the President and the Pope. Unfortunately Mr. Yousef is more against Islam vocally right now, than our Pontiff is, and would likely be encouraged to remain another “bridge” as Tony Palmer publicly testified our Popes insisted he do, while he longed to receive the Eucharist with his family, he said.
MICHAEL LEON POSTED THIS ABOUT THE INFO BELOW, AND IT IS IMPORTANT SO WE’RE POSTING IT HERE AS WELL
August 16, 2014 4:33 pm Reply
Please DON’T sign the petition to Stop the Synod on the Family at the Remnant UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO RISK LOSING YOUR JOB.
–
I have just discovered that the full name and city, state of those signing this petition are publicly available online at the click of a button. Under these circumstances I would strongly suggest that you NOT sign this petition. I have posted more detailed information on this subject at my blog here:
–
http://publicvigil.blogspot.com/2014/08/please-sign-petition-to-stop-synod-on.html
Dear Nicole,
We’ve posted replies to the prior post questions you posed–just FYI
As to other posters, , to quote the Holy Father, “who are we to judge”
(just kidding) Haven’t reviewed this one yet, so can’t comment on that, actually. .
–
—- You wrote . ” Firstly, have you ever dialogued *successfully* with many Muslims? If so, was it because you used language you knew would be offensive to them in order to convince them they were wrong?”
—actually we have, but not with ‘many” and found that the direct approach worked so well, we had to move the conversation to another place to continue it, as it started as strangers at a book sale, and 5 people got involved in the discussion, blocking the table. It was great. All immediately recognized the friendliness behind the passion, and gave in kind with no hard feeling. Muslims who know their Faith don’t respect luke-warm approaches, and those who do not, are more easily swayed by sincere but passionate convition–just our experience.
____
Regarding criticism of our practices, we’ve done enough with Protestants to be way past “hurt feelings’. All true evangelization has to come from a fundamental love of God, gratitude for this AMAZING body of Truth and GRACE and the REAL Presence it has to offer for sanctification, and honest-to God love of every soul on earth, including ISIS.
__
We have a friend in an order that takes a 4th vow to go ransom Catholics taken captive by Moslems, who is ready to give his life for another. One of their order’s Saints, was exchanged for a lay prisoner, and refused to stop preaching Catholicism, so they put a huge metal Hook through both of his lips. That’s the way of old. Not everyone is called to that heroic virtue, but it by no means was unheard of in the history of our Church.
_____
Calling Moslems names in what context? On a blog where someone may be offended or may take it as truth? Opinions come and go, and there are enough to correct wrong ones around here, that everyone can see there is much diversity of thought being expressed. We hope truth triumphs, and do our best to avoid unnecessary name-calling. Occasionally we may indulge, but it’s not our normal way.
–
—- “wipe them out completely” Maybe, unfortunately once they go on a rampage like the one they are on, that may be our only recourse. If we had done more to convert those they recruited in the past 50 years, things would be different..
*has been guiding
Dear Bert,
Good questions. How easily to you give up? That determines what happens right now.
We still spread the Faith wherever anyone will listen. When a person is interested, we have the added burden of explaining how the current situation mirrors what Jesus predicted would happened to His Church in Mattheew 24-25.
The chaos sadly demonstrates the proof that the Catholic Church, with all it’s scandals, is HIS. Why else would the Devil attack it so much, leading to the apostasy?
Then we go to the old texts and help them understand Scriptures, and teach the Rosary. These are desperate times, and the “silence” of the Church is deadly. Unfortunately good priests to send converts to are unavailable for the most part. So we warn them about the bad teachers, bad teachings, and dangers of advice in Confessionals. If they hang in there, they are truly called by God. We’ve seen a few, but not too many these days. The sincerest ones can’t take what they see happening with ecumenical prayer–especially when they come from backgrounds which condemn paganism. What can we say to them when our Pope lets a Moslem invoke the Qua’ran on Pentecost in the Vatican’s garden, plants a peace tree, and war breaks out in Gaza?..
Dear Nicole,
Perhaps where you go wrong is in lumping everyone here together as a group, in which “everyone” responds (inappropriately in your view) as if identically. There is too much variety here for that to be accurate, and you immediately lose credibility. Suggest you take some time and respond to a post here or there, rather than doing Luther’s 95 every time and waiting for the hammer.
Question for you since we don’t know very much about you.. Not meant as sarcasm only as multiple choice:
Are you here because you enjoy tormenting yourself or others? or because you are crazy about the Pope and see him as the future of Christianity and hope of feminism?, ;, or are you more conservative by nature and desire to serve God by correcting your brethren to protect them from sinning? Something else? A combo? If it is the sin concern, we applaud your intentions and welcome wholesome reminders to keep our posts respectful of others as human beings-including the Pope.
God Bless
Nicole,
I’m so hurt– you said, “@Indignus famulus – it looks like you are the only person on here who is not blinded by rudeness and pride and thus the only one I may be able to dialogue with.” — What did I do? In the previous blog (You have Heard…#19), from which you copied this entry, I tried to respond in a friendly manner (#25). If you considered it too familiar, and therefore rude, I’m sorry that I misconstrued what you meant with your invitation of “people to aggressively disagree with me”.
et cum spiri2 2-O 🙂
Dear Nicole
” if inferiors in the government of the Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.”
___
Let’s assume for the moment, for the sake of good argument, that we agree with you completely. How then are we to react if and when the Prophet of the Beast foretold by St. John in the book of Revelations, turns out to the a Pope who falls prey to the same worldly ideas Pope Francis espouses, and becomes so enamored of the New World order, and the unity muslim avatar Maitreya, proclaiming him the 2nd coming of Christ, and re-interpreting the Scripture that says he will come on the clouds, and every eye will see Him, to mean He will come in a time of great confusion (clouds meaning confusion) such as right now. Do the rules you are citing require us to ignore Scripture’s known interpretation as literal coming on the clouds, in favor of his altered views which benefit his novel idea?. (The avatar is a muslim who accepts all religions and is thus to be rejected by many Muslims as a traitor.)
___
Please don’t let the answer be “that can never happen”.
Shepherds in theology = the Bishops. The Supreme Shepherd = the Pope. Thought that was pretty common knowledge.
Who gets to decide Bert? Novus Ordo Watch? The Diamond Brothers? The SSPX? Louie? The Fatima Centre? The Remnant? Catholic FAmily News? The SSPV? Really it seems to me its the magisterium of Bert who gets to decide who is Pope and who is not, what is authentic Catholic teaching and what is not.
–
Bert why do you think you are are allowed to examine and judge after your own own fashion the acts of authority.
–
There are two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock.
–
You forget that to the shepherds *alone* were given all power to teach, to judge, to direct. On the laity like you Bert was imposed the dutyy of following their teaching, of submitting to their jugment, and of allowing yourself to be governed, corrected, and guided by them.
You can call Us Bertus I, thank you very much.
As far as tho whom, maybe you should research the basic Sedevacantist position and its justification.
That would greatly please Us.
Ah – another talented sophist has stopped by chat – great!
—–
Your lumping of the SSPX, the Remnant, CFN, and Louie in with the others here makes no sense given that not only are none of these groups or individuals sedevacantists, almost all of them have devoted much effort in past decades to combating the sedevacantist error.
—–
Of course, you are quite wrong when you insist that “There are two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock.”, with no exceptions. God is not bound by your generalizations. Here’s just a little bit on that score:
—–
Pope Leo XIII wrote this: “When circumstances make it necessary, ***it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith.***”
—–
Scripture Itself condones (we might say “commands”) the correction of clergy by inferiors:
—–
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Timothy 5:19-20)
—–
St. Thomas agrees: “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q33, a4.
—–
Many more quotations from saints, theologians, and doctors could be brought forth. And, we have canon law – the 1983 Code:
—–
212.3: “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the laity] ***have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful***, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
@A Catholic Thinker. I’m glad unlike most you had the guts to identify what I said you disagreed with – so I can at least respond to you and defend my views. However you only said you disagrees with the following:’“There are two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock.”’
–
Do I take it that you agree with the rest, or is there any of the following you also take issue with before I respond (please make it clear if you agree with the rest or point out any other points you disagree with – cheers):
–
DO YOU AGREE WITH MY FOLLOWING COMMENTS I MADE EARLIER:
The error the folks here are making is that they think themselves able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. Of course, as you know that is a misplaced opinion. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Catholic faith, in which, as you know there are to be distinguished two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme boss – the Pope.
–
The folks here forget that to the shepherds *alone* was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct. On the lay faithful was imposed the dutyy of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their jugment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to be humble and submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the Bishops (the Shepards) to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
–
You folks commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers. Think about it – if inferiors in the government of the Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.
Nicole,
—–
No, I don’t agree with the rest of what you’ve said. I’ve actually not read most of your posts – I don’t have the time to go through this whole thing – but it seems clear you speak from the erroneous neo-Catholic point of view.
—–
“The error the folks here are making is that they think themselves able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. Of course, as you know that is a misplaced opinion.” – Are you serious? As I just demonstrated to you, the Church Herself encourages the faithful to weigh the teaching they are given, and to, if necessary, publicly rebuke prelates. This is the teaching of the Church, and it has always been so.
—–
The neo-Catholic position becomes nonsensical so quickly. I did notice that you yourself called a cardinal “wrong” above – so it would seem (perhaps I’m obtuse) you immediately contradict your own golden rule.
—–
I’ve yet to come across a neo-Catholic papaloter who says that the faithful during the Arian crisis should have accepted the Arian heresy being taught by 75-90% of the prelates of the time (depending upon your source). Of course, such people generally don’t talk about – or probably think about – such things in general.
—–
In short, your argument is extremely simplistic and contradict directly by countless examples in the history of the Church, as well as by the OFFICIAL TEACHING of popes, Catholic theologians, saints, and even apostles.
—–
You also make a serious error in lumping the Society of St. Pius X and other like-minded Traditionalists with the dogmatic sedevacantist crowd; the two have little in common in important aspects. In fact, the sedes and neo-Catholics share the same root error – both believe that the pontiff (and other prelates in some cases, such as, apparently, yours) must be essentially impeccable. The former respond by declaring pontiffs who teach error (but do not, of course, bind the faithful to such, as the Holy Ghost will never allow such a thing) to be no pontiffs at all, and the latter with the papalotry (sometimes even approaching sycophantic adulation) that results from the tragically mistaken believe that all the pope utters is infallible, or at least demands assent.
—–
I recently rebutted some of the errors of novusordowatch here:
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/a-response-to-novus-ordo-watch/
—–
I offer it as it explores questions such as the level of assent demanded by various types of statement of the ordinary magisterium and also the non-magiserium (papal interviews, etc.)
—–
Christ is still with His Church and He always will be. His protection is evident in the fact that the modernists have never even attempted to bind the faithful to their errors – in fact, they have bent over backwards to avoid doing just that, as Paul VI made clear in his statements regarding the Council.
—–
And, Christ does want us, the faithful, to reject these errors, just as He wanted the faithful during the Arian crisis to rebuke their heretical bishops and cling to the True Faith.
—–
Alas, this present crisis is far more insidious than that of the destroyer Arius, who was at least extremely clear and specific in his errors.
The truth as revealed to us by God and found in the unchanging Deposit of Faith is not complicated or esoteric or gnostic but clear and simple and recognisable as the truth by those with reason and in a state of grace. A child can understand the Faith. All the confusion is of the Devil, a fruit of sin. Complicating the Faith – the unchanging and unchangeable truth – is a denial of truth. It is the tyranny of relativism.
@A Catholic Thinker, and @Indignus @ Chris, I would have to respectfully disagree with your views. By your own claims that would make people like Pope Leo XIII that great Marian saint neo-Catholics or heretics or whatever you claim them to be….
–
I guess you would probably consider Pope Leo XIII to be in error and resisted and rebuked as well. So basically everyone decides what they accept from the Pope and what they decide to rebuke right? Sounds awfully a lot like Protestantism.
TYPO – I didnt mean to say “saint” but rather devotee. In other words Pope Leo XIII is all the things you called me – modernist, neo-Catholic etc and should be resisted.
sorry for my bad spelling and grammar. im typing on my iphone.
@Nicole: So you must agree that proselytism is solemn nonsense and that Tony Palmer was a “brother bishop” to the Pope? Yes or no?
Dear Nicole,
You’ve done a lot of writing, but don’t seem to be listening. We aren’t scholars like you claim to be, but it was explained to us that Canon Law provides the proper uses of dogmatic teachings, and in that way A Catholic Thinker proved you are still wrong, didn’t he? At least what he said makes sense to us. You just seem to want to play games and that’s not really helping anyone, least of all, you.
Hail Mary, full of Grace, help us all to love one another as you do.
Nicole,
From your reply to ACT, IF & Chris, I would suspect that your questions which you wanted refuted quoting what you said, so you could respond, were initially from Leo XIII. Is that the case? Is that why you say that Pope Leo would be considered in error? Even though both Chris and ACT quoted Pope Leo to refute your statements? Maybe you’d like to add citations (primary, of course), where anyone here is saying Pope Leo’s wrong. There’s no reason to re-post your questions. You’ve done it 3 times in the 2 blogs, and Christopher was generous enough to quote you per your request. It appears to me you’ve been trolling the past couple of days for a “gotcha”. It looks to me you failed miserably.
Mike you suprize me. By your own admission your suggesting Leo XIII contradicted himself. So was he a true Pope?
–
Regarding trolling I take your definition of trolling to be anyone who disagrees with you. Sadly that is not the definition of internet trolling. Being rude is not part of that definition either. Otherwise that would include most of the people on this forum.
–
Your saying Leo said one thing, then others are quoting Leo to show he was wrong. My question is, should we listen to anything Leo says if he contradicts himself like you claim.
Yes Mike, I am claiming that Leo XIII would agree with me and my comments. I am indeed claiming he made similar comments. But I am also claiming a lot more. I am claiming that all Roman Pontiffs would support and agree with me and that all Roman Pontiffs have made similar comments.
‘Pope Leo XIII that great Marian saint neo-Catholics or heretics or whatever you claim them to be….’
–
You would have to demonstrate that Pope Leo XIII was teaching Error. The Pope does not have ultimate authority and even himself is bound by Tradition. Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium work in union.
–
‘I guess you would probably consider Pope Leo XIII to be in error and resisted and rebuked as well. So basically everyone decides what they accept from the Pope and what they decide to rebuke right? Sounds awfully a lot like Protestantism.’
–
Protestantism is the rejection of the Catholic Faith, denying Dogmas such as Transubstantiation. Why do you use the Protestant reference? Are the Orthodox Protestant? Clearly not. Also, why would Pope Leo XIII be in error?
‘Mike you suprize me. By your own admission your suggesting Leo XIII contradicted himself. So was he a true Pope?’
–
Your stating that contradicting a Pope somehow relates to questioning whether he was a true Pope or not. I asked you above and there was no response, what of Saint Catherine of Siena who rebuked the Pope?
Correction: You’re.
–
Also to note, if the Pope preached error such as Relativism, stating that there is no ultimate Good, would you not correct him? Or would you let him condemn himself? If you let him condemn himself, you have a lot to answer for.
@Nicole: I am concerned about your so-called “teaching”. Taken to its logical conclusion your teaching suggests that the faithful laity have an obligation to assent to whatever teaching is presented to them for belief, as long as the person doing the presenting is a superior. Do I understand your teaching correctly?
——-
Your teaching seems to contradict the obligation to which Catholics are subject to reject heresy. In other words, if through the exercise of right reason given their level of catechesis and state in life, Catholics can determine that a teaching presented to them for belief is heretical, they are obligated to reject the teaching, even if it was presented to them by a superior. If this were not true, members of the laity would not be able to sin by assenting to heresy, because they could always argue that the only reason they assented was that the heresy was presented to them for belief by a superior. Accordingly, the “I was just following orders” defense is generally not available to Catholics in such matters.
——-
Have I misunderstood your teaching? If I have in fact misunderstood your teaching, would you agree that a member of the faithful Catholic laity can reject on their own initiative a teaching presented to them for belief by a superior if they determine that the teaching is heretical?
dear Cyprian,
Good to see you back here. I welcome your comments because your approach has taught me a lot. I’ve noticed,over time, that you do not attempt to convince in a strident manner which can often move rapidly into browbeating–a vice which I fight against continually, and a serious fault which I possess-so many thanks.
—
Anyway, re: topic at hand–you state; “through the exercise of right reason given their level of catechesis and state in life, Catholics can determine ——,”
—
and so on,
to this, if I may say, say yes, this was a given in everyday Catholic life during the Reign of Pius XII–within which I spent my childhood, insofar as it was “understood,” if you will.
Thanks–Peace be to you.
Dear Nicole,
–
Regarding your position that the folks here are guilty of the “error of presuming to become judges and teachers”, I would kindly direct your attention to the clear presentation of the traditional teaching on this matter contained in the recently published document “Sensus Fidei” (2014):
–
“Alerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognize in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd. ‘The sheep follow [the Good Shepherd] because they know his voice. They will not follow a stranger, but they will run away from him because they do not know the voice of strangers’ (Jn 10:4-5). For St. Thomas, a believer, even without theological competence, can and even must resist, by virtue of the sensus fidei, his or her bishop if the latter preaches heterodoxy. In such a case, the believer does not treat himself or herself as the ultimate criterion of the truth of faith, but rather, faced with materially ‘authorized’ preaching which he or she finds troubling, without being able to explain exactly why, defers assent and appeals interiorly to the superior authority of the universal Church.”
–
Everything you have argued in favor of obedience is predicated upon the premise that our pastors are upholding and defending the faith. If we grant that premise, your inference is certainly correct. But the truth of the premise is the very thing under examination here, not the validity of the conclusion drawn from it.
Bravo.
dear Matthew
@Nicole: With all due charity, the position you have been advocating for is borne out neither by Church history nor by formal statements made by the Church. Thank-you to Matthew for providing one such example of a Church statement.
——-
Recalling Church history, the rejection of the Nestorian heresy began when Eusebius – while listening to a sermon by Nestorius – recognized that Nestorius was preaching a Christological heresy. Eusebius denounced the heresy which started a process that led to the calling of the Council of Ephesus. The Council confirmed the conclusion of Eusebius and denounced Nestorius. Interestingly, at the time he injected himself into the controversy Eusebius was a layman, although later he was ordained. Should Eusebius – being a mere layman – have assented to the teaching of Nestorius? Should faithful Catholics follow the example of Eusebius in doubtful times, or reject his example?
——-
Perhaps recalling the example of Eusebius, and the Council of Ephesus, Pope Leo XIII quoted St. Augustine in his famous encyclical Satis Cognitum thusly:
–
“‘When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?'”
——-
Here, Pope Leo XIII along with St. Augustine recognizes that the rejection of heretics and heresies has occurred “partly through the judgment of the people themselves.”
——-
Thus, when controversies present themselves able, properly catechized Catholic laymen should not be heard to say that participation in such controversies “is above their pay grade”.
Fight all error, but do it with good humour, patience, kindness and love.
John of Kanty #saints
“By your own claims that would make people like Pope Leo XIII that great Marian saint neo-Catholics or heretics or whatever you claim them to be…. I guess you would probably consider Pope Leo XIII to be in error and resisted and rebuked as well. So basically everyone decides what they accept from the Pope and what they decide to rebuke right?”
—–
Nicole, this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever when applied to my comments. Here is what I quoted from Leo XIII:
—–
“When circumstances make it necessary, ***it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith.***” (Emphasis is, of course, mine.)
—–
From this you conclude that I label this great pontiff a “neo-Catholic” or – God forbid – a heretic – ?! What on Earth are you talking about?
—–
You are either very confused (neo-Catholics are), a sophist attempting to undermine our host Louie’s efforts here, or – this is my guess – both.
—–
Now I’m going to repeat some of my previous comments to you for posterity:
—–
Scripture Itself condones (we might say “commands”) the correction of clergy by inferiors:
—–
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Timothy 5:19-20)
—–
St. Thomas agrees: “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q33, a4.
—–
Many more quotations from saints, theologians, and doctors could be brought forth. And, we have canon law – the 1983 Code:
—–
212.3: “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the laity] ***have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful***, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
And again At the Bottom as such is The Way here:
—–
“By your own claims that would make people like Pope Leo XIII that great Marian saint neo-Catholics or heretics or whatever you claim them to be…. I guess you would probably consider Pope Leo XIII to be in error and resisted and rebuked as well. So basically everyone decides what they accept from the Pope and what they decide to rebuke right?”
—–
Nicole, this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever when applied to my comments. Here is what I quoted from Leo XIII:
—–
“When circumstances make it necessary, ***it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith.***” (Emphasis is, of course, mine.)
—–
From this you conclude that I label this great pontiff a “neo-Catholic” or – God forbid – a heretic – ?! What on Earth are you talking about?
—–
You are either very confused (neo-Catholics are), a sophist attempting to undermine our host Louie’s efforts here, or – this is my guess – both.
—–
Now I’m going to repeat some of my previous comments to you for posterity:
—–
Scripture Itself condones (we might say “commands”) the correction of clergy by inferiors:
—–
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Timothy 5:19-20)
—–
St. Thomas agrees: “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q33, a4.
—–
Many more quotations from saints, theologians, and doctors could be brought forth. And, we have canon law – the 1983 Code:
—–
212.3: “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the laity] ***have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful***, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
Bishops or those claiming to be bishops? Christ, St Paul, St Peter and their true successors gave us provision for not becoming the stupid disciples of false folks. I’m starting to see that Catholics perhaps cause of cradle veetwooo ishooz have no concept of the Rock -what converts seem better able to see, and thereby better able to see sand for what it is.
I know, Roman Watcher; but I also know that the Church and her True Peters not so many centuries ago made provision for when those claiming to be Peter but were preaching like Saul, should be rendered nothing to the Faithful by providing propers means – they provided for this and now the Salzas et al argue on diablo’s side.
–
the question goes back to VII – there are alot of folks out there who don’t know that satan’s wars meant Vatican One was never completed – Pius XII had the grace of the Holy Ghost not to resume VI= Vatican II. Then Pius XII died and the ’58 conclave had white and black and grey finally ‘white’ smoke ‘resulting’ in VII (bereft of the protection of the Holy Ghost – which the enemies spared nothing to achieve) to ‘complete’ Vatican One. Instead it was its own Vatican ‘i’ – i representing old nick, Diablo, whatever – the Loki of contemporary antichurchaction. it will never go away until he is put to pit – or we so called Faithful see and hear and call upon God to put said council and its loki-ees to pit.
–
p.s. Loki is the norse persecutor of Job.
Bert,
Your questions are quite surprising, seeing that your surname is Jewish a tutti gli effetti….
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Messiah? That would be a good place to begin….
Roman Watcher, obviously “Schlomowitz” it’s a pseudonym and not my real name.
And no I’m not a Talmudic or Messianic Jew.
You did not answer my question….
BTW, would you also be the 4 fake Schlomowitz on Twitter?
https://twitter.com/search?q=Schlomowitz&src=typd&mode=users
Bert Schlomowit or Gregory A Clark, whatever you are calling yourself today:
Perhaps your citation from American Bride in Kabul, represents your real ethic?
https://kindle.amazon.com/profile/Gregory-A–Clark/18882
“Gregory shared from American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West
“When people renounce lies, they simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person. —ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN1”
“Roman Watcher” (talk about not using one’s real name as proof of anything),
instead of searching for clues (or lack thereof) about what my ethic is,
it would be wise to maybe drop the two-bit conspiracy theorist googling and just read my past comments on this site.
I am saying this because what you are doing does not help your credibility at all.
Thank you.
I gently decline to answer a question only brought forth due to your twofold erroneous assumptions, namely me being jewish, and a person with a jewish surname being unable to catholic.
Thanks Mr. Clark, for confirming everything I have alleged. You are a very slipperly troll, who plays the right-wing friend, has studied pyschology, are very cinical, and who is not a believer in Our Lord Jesus Christ. Knowledgeable in Italian and Portuguese and English. Perhaps one of those payed trolls employed by George Soros, otherwise known as an Obot….
Roman Watcher, while I can assure you you’re entirely mistaken about me,
and while I can confirm paid trolls (be it by the Government, the EU, Soros, various NGOs, etc,) are a reality, I’m curious as to what you believe “Obots” were to gain by promoting the SedeVacante position, or otherwise an extreme adversarial and critical position towards the Vatican II Church, in your opinion?
Thank you.
@Bert, RW: Why the tip-toeing around? Bert, I have a problem with your pseudonym. Generally, this blog is for “us” not “them” and what is good for “us”. It is also for “them” too if they want to learn about “us” or if they want to convert and join “us”. Carelessly using an ethnic surname for a pseudonym might give (1) an unbiased new reader the impression that posters here have a problem with “them” solely because of their “themness” (we cannot have a problem with “them” solely because of their “themness” as a matter of religious principle) or (2) an agent provocateur the opportunity to smear this blog because we have posters here who use pseudonyms that have the appearance of a crude stereotype of “thems”. For the good of this blog please consider changing your pseudonym.
——
Also, if you believe that organized themry and their projects are a threat to the Church, you can start a forum post on the topic. I would counsel you against doing so though because again that may give an agent provocateur the opportunity to label this blog as “antithemitic”. I think it is probably best to leave them out of our discussions (unless their actions or our actions with respect to them become a topic for a blog post) because whenever the “thems” are discussed that gives rise to the possibility that this blog will become all about “them” and what is “good for them” instead of about “us” and what is “good for us”.
Cyprian, Pope St. Pius X said it was a Catholic duty to tear off the masks of the Church’s enemies… Mr. Schlomowitz’s problem has been sufficiently evidenced, I’ll say no more to him….Though, I hope Lou watches Mr. S’s logons and see that trolls of such a kind do not return under other pseudonyms.
But provocateurs, as the kind mentioned, work to polarize discussions, create division, and thus promote the collapse of the West, first by discrediting their own enemies: Catholics, the sane and the honest. They are surely allies of all who work for destruction. The Green Lodge in Rome is full of those fluent in Italian, Latin, Hebrew, Portuguese and English, not to mention French and Spanish. They have publically shown their affection for Bergoglio, and I would generally assume and expect them to work against those whom they perceived to be his enemies. Remember, the modus operandi of Freemasonry is to be the principals on both sides of every conflict, so that when the conflict resolves, their interests are always guarded.
Roman Watcher,
I think your suspicious nature (a virtue in times such as ours) might have gotten the better of you.
I sincerely hope Mr. Verrecchio deletes the latest comments on this page because frankly they may harm the blog itself and the person(a) of Roman Watcher.
It is right and reasonable to distrust (almost) everyone I agree, but frankly the evidence you put forward is severly lacking and the connections you made appear to me as very weak, from an objective p.o.v. (nevermind me knowing personally you are completely wrong).
Cyprian,
Alas, I also changed my name(but just think as how offensive that request would have been for a “them” convert), but all my previous comments still show the old nickname as far as I can tell.
If you check the Forums under the “General Discussion” area, you would see I have already contributed to a thread about themery putting forward interesting evidence which no doubt you’ll find stimulating.
All in all, if Mr. Verrecchio will judge my presence here problematic I will no doubt comply with his moderatorial line and further avoid coming back under any other pseudonym in the future.
Because, after all, the blog is his, and more importantly I trust his judgment in said matters.
Thank you.
Hey Gentlemen,
I’m not able to read through all of the comments here in detail, but let me just offer a few thoughts:
One, there is place for pseudonyms here as commenters need to have a way to speak candidly without fear of repercussion (especially in the case of clergy). I do, however, want people to stick with one user name only.
I’m not all that concerned with knowing who the “real” person behind the comments is unless they prove malicious.
Motives (which are usually pretty hard to discern anyway) don’t concern me so much either since I’ve noticed that those who come to teach us a thing or two often learn more than they ever imagined.
If it seems like good will is lost in any given exchange, just say so and move on.
Easier said than done when it comes to the kinds of things we address here, I know.
All of that said, I appreciate everyone’s participation here. It hasn’t helped that I’ve had my hands full with other projects and haven’t posted for a while. I hope to rectify that soon.
Lou,
I’d point out that Slomovicci is apt to offen Jews, because Solomovicci is a Jewish surname in Brazil / Portugal…infact, perhaps the translation of the previous surname of the said Mr. Schlomowitz…. The Jews are well known for their penchant in changing their surnames, like the Rothschilds did. I think, personally, as a Catholic, it is offensive to use a Jewish surname if you are not Jewish. And such behavior should not be tolerated…
FYI https://pt-br.facebook.com/ruth.solomovici
Roman Watcher,
now you’re being ridicolous.
I italianised my pseudonym to remove the “ethnic” flavour you guys were complaining about, but now it’s still too jewish.
So tell me a nickname I could use which would at the same time let other posters it’s still me?
I await your wise counsel…
Lou,
FYI https://twitter.com/solomovici/following contains tweets in English and Portuguese, and he is a follower of a GayPorn tweet thread….wants to change politics peacefully…has a friend in america (Rui Americano)….
I’ve done internet work for more than 20 years, and if I were a betting man, Mr. Solomovici is his real name, he’s is really jewish, and is neither Talmudic or Messianic, because he is a non believer. He sees Bergoglio as the one to open the door to indifferentism and homosexualism in the Church, so has joined a group to infiltrate sites where the perceived enemies of Bergoglio converse….trained in pyschology and very cynical by nature, he believes it easier to turn others to extreme positions…though this is one persona, he has many, and may be participating here under other names…
Lou, it is important to monitor forums for trolls and obots, because as Catholics we ought not tolerate deceit of any kind, let alone allow our fellow Catholics to be abused by such men…
“Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne” or “Eugenio Maria Zolli”
Apology in advance for the lenth of this post–we’re hoping this convinces Nicole she is mistaken.
— Dear Nicole, Re: your views– 1.that Louie and others practice sinful disobedience by contrasting Dogmatic Church teachings with the
Popes own words in opinions on this blog-post; and 2.quotes from reported sources are unprovable “hearsay”, even if they come from Cardinals, and other direct witnesses who chose their own reporters:
___
If you’re sincere, then your driving interest should be to stop everyone of us from sinning, and you would not engage in such activities,or further encourage others to continue to engage in them. Yet instead you requested we post even more-damning evidences than were posted prior to your arrival asking:– Aug 15, 2014 11:27 pm : “Can you please show me a primary sourced document or video in the words of Pope Francis himself, that is not a secondary representation (which as you know amounts to hearsay where he: (1) “publicly stated he has no interest in making converts of the Protestant Evangelicals”; and (2) advises people not to convert when they specifically request it? I’ll make sure to consider such evidence when you present it”. (according to your view, was it not a sin for you to ask for that to be posted for you?)
____
We’ve viewed videos of the Pope saying exactly what the media (and we) cite from the press about him, but refrain from linking to them, when other opinions are written on the sites- which we deem dangerous to the misguided or uneducated. Site opinions don’t affect the videos, so we use them to establish our own certainty. One such showed the Pope, [along with photo of his own writings saying almost identical words]speaking in Spanish:
” a convencer a latro a convertirse en Catolico? No! No! No!” shaking his finger. Even before the translation-check it’s plainly: ..
“to convince the other to convert to Catholicism?, No!No!No!)” shakiing his finger.
___
You responded to Bert saying “Kasper is wrong” and “theology manuals” prove that– without any citation from Bert for his quote. So your direct- evidence and concern for reputations apparently only applies to the Pope? Then you should have no problem affirming other “wrong” ideas spread by Kasper, which were condemned by the CDF when headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1994.
____
Wickipedia: “In 1993 Kasper and other members of the German episcopate signed a pastoral letter which urged allowing divorced and civilly remarried German Catholics to return to the sacraments, to the disapproval of then Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II”
___
“On 14 September 1994 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF –to all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church Re: reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried members of the Faithful: “The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”. In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the
obligation to avoid giving scandal.”
===========
—In his first Angelus address on March 17, 2013, Pope Francis praised Kasper…”In these days, I have been able to read a book by a cardinal—Cardinal Kasper..on mercy.. a talented theologian, a good theologian…it did me so much good…”
===========
—On Feb 20, 2014 Pope Francis had Kasper be his keynote speaker (for hours) to the Cardinals of the 2-day Synod consistory.
–According to Cardinal Caffara, who expressed his concerns to the press on March 24th, “One of Kasper’s suggestions to the Cardinals, was that these divorced/civilly remarried non-annulled Catholics (whom Jesus calls-adulterers) should undergo a period of penance that would bring them into a full readmission to Communion”
Kasper’s explanation: “To live together as brother and sister?””Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158959/posts (par. 5)
— On day 2 of the consistory, Pope Francis praised this already-condemned theology, and apologized for embarassing Kasper with so much praise: — “Yesterday, before falling asleep, ..I re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”
___
___
Our questions to Nicole–since you immediately condemned Kasper’s “wrong” idea without any proof that he said it, simply because it was directly contrary to the Faith, and you recognized your duty to denounce it for the sake of the faithful, can you not see that the same thing applies to anyone who espouses his “wrong” ideas, and especially for one who has even more power to spread them and corrupt souls?
___
How can you believe Jesus wants you to silence those who follow their rightly formed consciences and the sensus fidelum which the Holy Spirit gives to the laity, who live the Faith daily, in denouncing error wherever it is found for the sake of innocent souls?
–
P.S.
Cardinal Caffara is not alone, in going to the press with concerns:
—even(the ecumenically-liberal)Archbishop Aquino of Denver told the press regarding the public’s ideas about the divorced and the Eucharist.: …“In my view, these opinions expressed by the people of God should compel bishops to declare a profound mea maxima culpa,” he stated. “They point to our failure as pastors, teachers and spiritual fathers.” Noting that “mercy cannot be confused with tolerating an evil,” he stressed the importance of helping the faithful to properly form their consciences.
But my nick is the italianisation of Schlomo-witz from the first Yddish first name “Schlomo” and the suffix “witz”, while Solomonovici is the latinisation (in portuguese to be specific) of the surname “Solomonovich” (from the scriptural Solomon I imagine).
The two have completely different etymologies.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
very good collection of quotes.
Minor error, Francis said in Spanish “Voy a convencer a otro que sea catolico? No, no no.”
And yes it means what we all think it means.
Dear Bert,
We were writing it down phonetically directly from the video this time, without going by the book’s words, to be “video accurate” so it’s likely we just lost syllables that get swallowed when someone is speaking;, but it also may have been another dialect, no?
Anyway, thanks for the language clarifications and the confirmation that it means what it sounds and looks like. .
p.s to Bert,
We also just rechecked what printed above, and noticed that spell-check changed some of the words completely from what we typed in. en=a for eg.
–like Salvemur’s tua , we guess. So now we’re not sure if what you printed out is what you meant to write. Is it? Guess it’s not that important 😉
Indignus Famulus,
Maybe they’re from different videos?
The one I’m talking about, and receiving much publicity in the Traditional circles is from the following video message of Francis speaking to the followers of Saint Cajetan / San Gaetano / San Cayetano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY0A5QjcMVc
Do not worry this is the original message and not part of some (more or less) misguided criticism video. Around 3:40 in the video.
Dear Nicole,
We just noticed you didn’t include “rightly formed conscience’ on your list of who get’s to decides. 🙂 That’s kinda’ funny, because when we were in Catholic school all those years that’s pretty much all we ever DID hear without any mention of a hierarchy. Do you mean to tell us our Catholic educations missed something besides the words encyclicals or dogma? We know they didn’t miss Teilhard de Chardin and transcendental meditation- because it took so long to learn to spell them right, along with anthropomorphize and clown mass–all new concepts that took some getting used to.
___
Of course those darned real Catholic people on the list you just put up, wouldn’t be teaching any of those things, would they? 🙂
Dear salvemur,
Don’t mean to sound like the next hopeful first man of the white house, but
boy,’ can we “feel your pain” there.
What we all could use a good dose of right now, is the good ole days where the townsfolk would gather and run a bad cleric out of town with farm implements and maybe some tar and feathers.
Sigh…..
Keep praying the Rosary. We’ll get this fixed… We need God to step in and let everybody know He sometimes acts on his own, without using men. Trouble with that is, we may be sorry we wanted to see it so badly….
Sorry, make that thank you to “Berto”
Lou,
RE: the thread
https://akacatholic.com/muslim-violence/#comment-23787
I humbly suggest that someone who refuses to acknowledge Our Lord as His Lord, and who uses a number of subterfuges of name and argument to turn the discussion elsewhere, is not acting according to the very basic requirements of a Catholic Forum, and should be banned.
If you don’t ban a fellow like that, then, I respectfully submit, that you are putting us all in harm of being exploited by him…
As for the other participants here who seem not to bother, I would also question whether you are other persona of the same troll, or if you are een Catholic, as no Catholic should tolerate a Catholic posing as a Jew, or a non-Christian Jew posing as a Catholic, as B.S. has confessed to be “I am not a Talmudic or a Messianic Jew”….
Must have been the other, more hidden aspects of those virtues -that Jesus showed us we have to use at times– when he made a whip and drove the money changers from the temple. “Tough love?” 🙂
Good reminders, though. God Bless
Dear Christopher,
We just got back from Mass–still basking in the glow, and happened to read this post of yours. You may not get a heartfelt responses to these truths of the Faith from the person they were meant to answer, but we hear the voices of our beloved Fathers and Saints echoing that of Lord and thank you for it.
We’re reminded us of some things we’d read long ago, and nearly forgotten, and found a few others we have yet to explore Pray that all may be one in understanding these truths..
God Bless you.
Mr. V wrote:
……”I’ve noticed that those who come to teach us a thing or two often learn more than they ever imagined.”
_____
YEP!
Brick by brick… baby:)
_______
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/saint-walburges-here-to-stay-tallest.html
_______
Money quote:
“We had first mentioned it in April. Now, it’s just weeks away, with the presence of the local Bishop, the Bishop of Lancaster Michael Campbell, whose foresight must be praised in granting the Institute of Christ the King the opportunity to re-evangelize this region, much of which remained faithfully Catholic after the unfortunate events of the 16th century, with the added responsibility of taking care of a magnificent monument. Saint Walburge’s came up as a true marker of the surrounding areas after Catholic emancipation in the 19th century almost as a statement in this region so marked by Recusancy: “we have never left, and we are here to stay.” It is therefore a perfect place for the Traditional Mass: we are here to stay.”
_______
“Numquam a nobis, nos hic manere”. 😉
One for the “pass the mortar” category:
_______
Appeal for Holy Innocents in New York City.
_______
Link here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/08/nyc-manhattans-church-of-the-holy-innocents-video/
_______
Our “foam cheese head” hat wearing cardinal needs to hear from his flock. 😉
And I saved the best for last: SSPX purchases St. James Catholic Church in Pittsburgh PA.
_____
Link here: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-gets-new-church-pittsburgh-4640
_____
The modernist’s are starting to sell the buildings now.
_____
On a personal note, in the late ’90 I was asked by a friend to be the godfather of his second born. The baptism was in in Pittsburgh, in one of those space ship churches. The next morning, we all went to a local bar for a Bloody Mary breakfast. The bar was a refurnished Catholic Church, with some the murals still intact. Very sad experience.
Don’t forget this one:
–
Newly Ordained New Zealand Priest Celebrates Latin Mass In West Auckland
–
http://cathnews.co.nz/2014/08/19/new-nz-priest-celebrates-latin-mass-west-auckland-church/
–
500 people sat in the pews for this Mass. Apparently the bishop was not too thrilled:
–
“Auckland diocese did not want to comment for this article.”
–
I have a lot of respect for the regular diocesan priest attempting to re-introduce the Latin Mass in his parish. God bless our priests.
Dear Roman watcher,
We have zero familiarity with internet workings re trolls, or whatever groups you and Bert(o) were discussing, but we took a look at your link and agree that whoever that one is, he needs the Faith. We do recall that when the “Bert” on this blog arrived, he was soon challenged by Matthew as a troll, and the response he gave then was contrary to what you are indicating, so we retrieved the posts to see if this info helps you in any way:
“Matthew August 9, 2014 10:24 am Reply
OK, Bert. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment. First, are you Catholic? Or, perhaps considering converting…I ask because you seem to have either received very poor formation or none at all. If you’re serious about learning about and/or deepening your understanding of the Catholic faith, people here will generally be quite helpful. But if you’re looking to pick a fight for the fun of it… then not so much. If you want to make a point, make it. There’s no need to try and catch someone in a logical error. State your case and let the matter stand or fall on its own merits.”
====
“Bert Schlomowitz August 9, 2014 11:34 am
Matthew, I’m currently part of the Vatican II church by Baptism and other Sacraments. I stopped actively frequenting my parish when they removed the altar and the crucifix and all the statues inside my church. I’m trying to understand the position of Traditionalists and how one should relate to the Novus Ordo, and if they themselves are in error by being in communion with the Vatican II apostates and heretics, or even if they are considered as such.
Surely answering a simple question instead of branding one as a troll is not asking much on my part?….he went on with more….
=====
Pleas know we feel unqualified to give an opinion on any of this, but maybe another observation will give you more info to go on.. We had been asking questions, and reading a bit in the General Forum by Thumbs on the Jewish Masonic question, and. Bert posted a link that puzzled us, and then a second that was very interesting. He does seem to have an interest in Jewish issues, and they did seem directed just to seeking truth, without bias. While we could obviously be wrong, maybe you could check it out to see whether it changes your mind or not.
God Bless.
As for the other participants here who seem not to bother, I would also question whether you are other persona of the same troll, or if you are een Catholic, as no Catholic should tolerate a Catholic posing as a Jew, or a non-Christian Jew posing as a Catholic, as B.S. has confessed to be “I am not a Talmudic or a Messianic Jew”….
Roman Watcher,
you realise you’re accusing me of those opposite and incompatible things?
This must be a first.. you’re saying I MUST be either a “Catholic posing as a Jew, or a non-Christian Jew posing as a Catholic” and you’re arrived at that conclusion simply because you first deemed my nickname as “jewish”.
Now I’ve never done any of those two things, as my posts show, and when asked I promptly denied both to me being jewish (therefore I cannot be a C. posing as a J.) or to my surname being real (therefore I cannot be a J. posing as a C. convert).
But even before your latest, contradictory, accusations you had already deemed me:
a)a fellow name Clark
b)other 3 people on Twitter simply because they too used the nickname “Schlomowitz”
c)a person in Brasil because of his similar surname to the nick we only adopted because you were complaining about it.
d)a Freemason from one of the Lodges in Rome of the Grande Oriente d’Italia
e)a Christ denier
As Indignus Famulus’ copy-pasting of my very first comments here show (thank you Indignus btw) I haven’t hesitated to share my situation just after a couple of comments on this forum.
I don’t know what else to say. This is very Kafkian indeed.
Maybe I’m a jewish freemason living in Rome of Brasilian origin you’re right, and maybe all the people posting here are actually my sockpuppets accounts and you’ve been talking to me the entire time! Right.
On this 97th anniversary of the 4th (of 6) Apparitions of Our Blessed Mother at Fatima, we recall:
In the apparition of Aug. 19, 1917, (6 days “late” because the children had been kidnapped by the local authorities on the usual date 13th)
Our lady appeared in the afternoon and said to the children:
” I want you to continue to go to Cova da Iria on the thirteenth of each month and to continue to pray the Rosary every day. On the last month, I will perform the miracle for all to believe.”
……..(they conversed a bit about healings, building her chapel….and then..)
“Becoming sadder, she recommended anew the practice of mortification, saying lastly, ‘Pray, pray much, and make sacrifice for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to sacrifice and pray for them.’
“As usual, she then began to rise toward the east.”
+++++++++++++
—Ave Maria, gratia plena Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesu.
—Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis, peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae, Amen.
+++++++++++++
And this:
“Fr Janssen, who lectures seminarians and others at Good Shepherd College in Auckland, said there is interest among his students in the extraordinary form liturgy.”
______
Archbishop Lefebvre, Deo Gratias
Speaking of Fatima: Did anyone else hear about the ‘new’ diary entry from Lucia written in 1944? Italian writer Antonio Socci is reporting on what could prove to be very important excerpts:
–
http://www.antoniosocci.com/2014/08/novita-apocalittiche-da-fatima-lultimo-mistero-il-silenzio-delle-suore-ma-chi-tace/
Thank you Matthew for the intriguing article.
Here’s the translation of the never before seen tidbit about how Sister Lucia found the courage and strenght to write down the Third Secret, reported by Socci:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Right afterwards- says Sister Lucia – “I felt the spirit inundated by a mystery of light which is God and in Him I saw and heard:
the tip of the spear like flame detaching itself, touching Earth’s axis and she (earth: Bert) shakes: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are submerged.
The sea, the rivers and clouds exceed (their? Bert) limits, overflow, flood and sweep away in a rush (whirl? Bert) people and homes in uncountable numbers,
it is the purification of the world from the sin it is immersed in.
Hate, ambition, cause the destructive war.
Afterwards I felt a light voice, in my spirit and accelerated beating of my heart, saying: “in time, only one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity the Heavens(it: cieli Bert)!” .
This word “Heavens” filled my heart of peace and happyness, so that, without almost realizing, I kept on repeating for a long time: the Heavens, the Heavens!”.
Now two notes about the text.
First and foremost, what Socci reports is clearly a very crude translation from the Portuguese, and many terms and passages may be inexact and do feel forced (and what you are reading now is a translation of a translation, so take it with a grain of salt).
Secondly, I don’t know if the vision Sister Lucia here recalls is intended to complement the Secret or is just a figurative image of her inner feelings and sensations in regards to the specific situation and the T.S.’s content.
It reminds me of something similar evoked by Fr. Malachi Martin in his interview to Art Bell (late 90s I believe) about “the seas evaporating in an instant”.
I eagerly await for someone more educated than me in Scriptures for possible parallels in symbology and or terminology, especially regarding “the tip of the spear like a flame”, if any.
Thank you.
Iraqi persecution–Courageous Faith, Hope and Love.
___
“People say it would be easy to become a Muslim, but my religion is everything I now have — why would I give that up?” one said. “I would die first.”
___
Their hopes now lie with the Kurdish Peshmerga, which, backed by U.S. airstrikes and working with Iraq’s national army, is fighting the Islamic State. They have won back control of several key cities and retaken the critical Mosul Dam. Christians hope the Kurdish fighters will help them regain their homes.
___
“Please, tell the world what is happening,” Aziz said. “Please tell the world we just want to go home. We just want to live,we just want to be safe.”
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/19/painful-exodus-mosuls-christians-recount-flight-from-historic-home-under-isis/?intcmp=latestnews