Several weeks ago, I said that Pope Francis took a major step toward formal heresy when he suggested that Christian unity exists among the schismatics and heretics, along with the children of the Church; prefacing his comments by saying, “This may sound controversial or even heretical…”
I took some heat for that statement from those who disagreed.
As I explained, it seems rather obvious that when a pope, especially one with a long track record of sowing doctrinal confusion, realizes that his comments “may sound … heretical” and yet offers them anyway, he is practically begging to be tried for formal heresy.
Well, if that constituted a “major step,” I suppose we’d have to call the following a “giant leap.”
At the end, we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:12), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe, which with us will share in unending plenitude.
Even now we are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven. Jesus says: “I make all things new” (Rev 21:5). Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.
– Pope Francis, Laudato Si – 243
Here, the pope is plainly misappropriating Sacred Scripture to suggest that all persons, without any qualification or distinction whatsoever, will enjoy eternal beatitude at the end of time.
The only way the situation could possibly be any more grave is if a demand for correction doesn’t come from one or more of the Cardinals, or at the very least a highly visible bishop, and soon.
Readers might recall Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s interview with La Croix back in early April wherein he said:
The arrival of a theologian like Benedict XVI in the chair of St. Peter was no doubt an exception. But John XXIII was not a professional theologian. Pope Francis is also more pastoral and our mission at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to provide the theological structure of a pontificate.
How long will we have to wait for Cardinal Müller to provide the “theological structure” necessary to correct the gravely dangerous proposition put forth in Laudato Si – 243?
In any case, let’s be very clear:
The problem isn’t that Pope Francis is so thoroughly “pastoral” as to need theological assistance.
Cardinal Müller doesn’t really believe that; he was simply being diplomatic. I have no doubt that he knows very well that such a dichotomy is patently ridiculous since only right doctrine and clear theological expressions have authentic pastoral value.
As for Laudato Si – 243, the real problem is that Pope Francis (not entirely unlike all of his post-conciliar predecessors, if we’re honest about it) seems rather clearly to believe that all “men of good will” are saved.
As such, it only makes sense that he sees no need whatsoever of calling worldly men to conversion to Christ and His Church, as doing so would just needlessly provoke their hostilities.
With this being his conviction, all that is left to do is to invite the men of this world to exhibit good will by entering into dialogue with one another, that they may “weave bonds of belonging and togetherness” in such a way as to bring about an “experience of a communitarian salvation” (cf Laudato Si – 149); a salvation that is presumably already their own, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
Objectively speaking, those who believe such things have lost, or have never had, the Catholic faith.
Evidence that this is the case with Pope Francis has been mounting from the earliest days of his dreadful pontificate.
Today, however, it is safe to say that we have reached a veritable breaking point.
No longer are we discussing yet another ill-advised papal interview, or a rambling Santa Marta sermon, or a sentimental video message sent to a gathering of heretics; rather, Pope Francis has chosen to enshrine in a papal encyclical his apparent belief that “we,” which includes all men without distinction, “will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God” in “happiness” at the end of time.
The peoples of the entire world need to know if Jorge Bergoglio truly believes this, or if he holds the Catholic faith.
It’s one or the other, folks. It cannot be both, and the time for making excuses for this pope has long since passed. The eternal state of souls is at stake.
This is a gravely serious matter; one that cuts right to the heart of who Jesus Christ truly is, and likewise the identity and the mission of His Holy Catholic Church.
The need to address this situation head-on is especially urgent given the pending Synod of Bishops, which has been charged by Pope Francis with the task of discussing possible changes to that which cannot be changed without undermining the very words of Our Lord.
On this note, Cardinal Müller even went so far as to state publicly that “each division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of the faith would be a reflection of a subtle Christological heresy.”
Allowing the Synod to convene before publicly challenging Pope Francis to correct such public statements as Laudato Si – 243 (among others), and to confirm either his acceptance or rejection of the Catholic faith would be a grave dereliction of duty for those men who wear red as a visible sign of their supposed willingness to defend the flock even unto martyrdom.
In truth, this should have happened long ago.
Evangelii Gaudium contains statements that are enough to prompt the College of Cardinals, or at least the few reasonably faithful members thereof, to formally challenge Pope Francis on his acceptance of the Catholic faith.
Instead, as you may recall, Cardinal Burke, who appears to be among the best of the lot, chose to take an “out” by saying:
To me, it’s a distinct kind of document, and I haven’t quite figured out in my mind exactly how to describe it. But I would not think that it was intended to be part of papal magisterium. At least that’s my impression of it. (Interview with Raymond Arroyo)
In so doing, Cardinal Burke suggested that the text of Evangelii Gaudium itself supported just such a reading as to the pope’s intent.
In the case of Laudato Si, however, neither Cardinal Burke, nor any other prelate that has an interest in defending the Faith as he should, has the luxury of just such an escape.
Pope Francis publicly declared before the release of Laudato Si:
I invite everyone to accept with open hearts this document, which places itself in the line of the Church’s social doctrine.
Look, most of us realize that if the sum total of Pope Francis’ public statements were compiled, without attribution, into a single written volume and submitted for evaluation by a reasonably orthodox Catholic theologian, at best he might suppose that the writer is a former-Catholic who as yet still clings to some vestiges of the one true faith that he clearly rejected. Heck, he might even suggest, and not without cause, that the writer has ceased to be “Christian” altogether.
Even the most committed papal excuse maker would have trouble denying that this has long been the case.
Now, however, with the promulgation of Laudato Si, the envelope has been pushed to the very brink, and with the upcoming Synod harkening nothing but disaster, it is entirely obvious that the good of the Church demands, and urgently so, that Pope Francis be subjected to a formal proceeding in order to determine whether or not he holds the Catholic faith.
Anything less on the part of those men who are in a position to make this happen will undoubtedly lead to the loss of countless souls for which they will one day have to answer.
Sure, let’s continue to pray and to fast for the pope, but might I suggest that our efforts may be better spent praying for the College of Cardinals, that some from among their ranks may be granted the grace to perform their sacred duty to protect the flock from the dangers posed by this pontificate.
Louie writes: “Pope Francis has chosen to enshrine in a papal encyclical his apparent belief [etc.]…”.
I believe that this extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia is of relevance here (emphases added):
“A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.”
From this extract, there are three reasons I can identify why a case would not be “in point”, namely:
1) the pope has not taught the doctrine publicly;
2) he has not taught it officially; or,
3) the doctrine has not yet been authoritatively condemned.
(Note that the Encyclopedia article does not specify that the teaching must also be ex cathedra.)
In the case of Honorius, the Monothelite heresy was not condemned until after his death. But it is still informative to ask, in Honorius’ case, what does the Encyclopedia state with regard to the criteria of “public” and “official” teaching? It states the following here:
“The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical.
(Note that this article does go on to consider whether the letter is also ex cathedra, but this is because, if it could be proved that Honorius, as well as publicly and officially teaching heresy (which, as stated above, would make him a public heretic), had also done so ex cathedra, then it would make the dogma of papal infallibility false.)
One of the most striking facts about this encylical is the fact that the Bishop of Rome frequently writes many paraghraphs in the first singular “I”. This is highly revealing of the high egomania of the Pope. He refuses of course, to use the pronoun “us”, that many of his predecessors did, especially before VII, But aside from that he could have written in an impersonal way, without pointing to he himself, as if he had written all of it, without the aid of the UN and the atheists of his entourage.
CARMARTIBOS
The false prophet francis wrote in his encyclical Evangelii guadium no 247
“We hold the jewish people in special regard because their covenant with GOD has never been revoked ”
formal heresy Louie ??
Excellent point, Carmartibos. When speaking for the Church, pre-conciliar popes traditionally used the pronouns “We” and “Us”. Perhaps, Bergoglio, the ultimate egoist, knows he is only speaking from himself. That’s a good reason why his words are (or should be) meaningless for Traditional and traditional-minded Catholics. Of course, the problem remains that Bergoglio is so in tune with the world that every time he opens his mouth (through word or pen) the world takes notice. Bergoglio is a menace!
Yes, Bergoglio has taken many leaps toward heresy and has finally arrive at that destination. Who will be the stand-bearer to take the first huge leap in declaring this truth????
Dear Louie,
Chris Jackson’s “Remnant” article also put it well:
“In short it is as if Al Gore, Karl Marx, and Teilhard de Chardin wrote an encyclical.”
__
We’re not sure that it takes any new directions, as much as it increases the height of the two yr (+3mos.) old pile of evidence of his INDIFFERENTIST idea that everyone is journeying toward heaven, with no need to mention the necessity for each to hear about and accept all the Truths Christ taught or be Baptized into the One, True Church He established to save all souls.
__
Without the usual initial address- line, we wondered who the “we” is that he is addressing throughout it. We find in p. 62 his statement that this encyclical was written: “TO ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL”, going immediately on to include those scientists and others who are non-believers in God as Creator and those who tolerate religions as a subculture–as those with whom he wishes to enter into intense dialogue “fruitful for both” believers and non-believers.
=====
in p. 63 it gets VII type (criminally) ambiguous when he states:
..”we need to realize that the solutions will not emerge from just one way of interpreting and transforming reality.”
___
A Catholic would think, “Well then he CAN’T be talking about the reality of our BELIEFS, CAN he? He must be referring to things like disagreements over what causes Climate change.” But he immediately went on to say:
“Respect must also be shown for the various cultural riches of different peoples, their art and poetry, THEIR INTERIOR LIFE AND SPIRITUALIY.”
=======
He’s told us often enough that we must “respect” all beliefs (which we know include false teachings). Does he realize they include those of jungle tribes who worship Satan without realizing it), but seem to be of “good will”? Sadly, he adds “…no branch of the sciences and NO FORM OF WISDOM CAN BE LEFT OUT and that includes religion and the language particular to it.”
======
Louie, you’ve pointed out before that he seems to believe the Catholic Church can still LEARN what moral Truth is from the world at large AND that this is God’s will for us, to merge into the Cosmic one-ness de Chardin believed He planned for all His creatures—WITHOUT Catholicism muddying the waters or trying to play the bridge between earthly existence and heaven.
–p.64: says: “this Encyclical welcomes dialogue with everyone so that together we can seek paths of liberation.”
__
And although we know the Bible says God told man to subdue and rule the earth, using it’s plants and animals for food. This encyclical says:
[p.83] “… The ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in US. Rather, all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. Human beings, endowed with intelligence and love, and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator.”
Again not a word about conversion. Just this continual talk of “being drawn”.
=======
He ends quoting Revelations 21:5 “I make all things new” , and as you noted, Louie, goes on to claim:
“ Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which EACH CREATURE RESPLENDENTLY TRANSFIGURED, WILL TAKE ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.” –Sorry, that looks like indifferentism.
=====
Ironically, he fails to inform all these people he is addressing, that just two short verses later in Revelations 21: 7-8 it says
‘He that shall overcome shall possess these things, and I will be his God; and he shall be my son. [8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Dear Carmatibos and My2cents,
Good points. Our comment (down below) includes the fact that we had to search to find out who the “we” is–when he uses it periodically. Turned out he was referring to “all people of good will” –apparently including himself .
So the royal “we” of the Papacy, representing the Trinity, has now become “we” the united leftist world working to save the fragile planet from men with too much freedom.
Dear I F,
All very good points….and at the end of the same chapter..” Nothing evil will be allowed to enter, nor anyone who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty—but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. ”
Rev 21:27
It’s my understanding that this document would have passed through the hands of the CDF before publication. Is that just a supposition or do we know this?
–
It does seem subtle, this particular paragraph. Would Poor Francis simply say “well, I meant those who will be saved. Give me a break, I was speaking about salvation in general terms.”
–
When I first read this, Louie, I didn’t think it so bad and I thought your take was a bit of a stretch….I’m not sure what to think. Those who have read my comments in the past might know that I don’t readily come to Poor Francis’ defence and I’m not doing that really but…
–
I do feel confused. Can this possibly be?
–
I don’t feel like getting into a discussion about popes being heretics either. What was done or not done in the past will not affect what we do now – we all know history is dead to modern man – prelates included. Besides if Francis is what we fear he is he would be the first of his kind – his apostasy seems different some how from what others have been accused of teaching.
–
So for me this is a time to get this into my tired head: it appears that Francis does not believe one must be a Catholic, in the state of grace, to be saved. He appears not to believe that those who are not baptized, or who belong to a heretical sect, or who are Jewish, or Muslim are in grave danger of hellfire – and that only an Angel, a missionary, or God’s direct inspiration can bring His Word to them.
–
Is the paragraph in question saying that? I don’t want to believe it!!!!!!!!!
–
How can we ever talk to others about the Truth, the Church, sin and repentance, Confession, penance, amendment of life? I want this to go away….
I see the phrase that has me confused:
–
“in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women…”
–
Doesn’t Francis mean each creature (animals, plants, bugs, sand etc.) will be perfected in the new Jerusalem, will have something to give…to those who will be saved? Does he mean by saying “those poor men and women” the real poor, not everybody?
–
Am I grasping at straws? Am I on a sinking ship? Am I whistling in the dark? Am I hoping against hope? Am I playing in the band on the deck of the Titanic?
All Men of Good Will ARE Saved.
This is True.
The question if the understanding of “Good Will” is accurate or not.
Someone of Good Will will Seek the Truth, and will show interest in learning about God, and God will help him to find Christ.
So many good stories about that abound.
Now especially that there are Catholic Churches in most corners of the world, and there is the Internet, there are many stories even in Islamic countries that people have become Catholic against all odds.
Men of Good Will ARE Saved. They are saved because with the help of the Holy Spirit, they search and find Christ, His Holy Church, and the Sacraments of Salvation (Baptism, Penitence, etc) besides Holy Devotions of the Holy Rosary, Scapulars, etc.
Are Pagans, Jews and others of seemingly good will in the sense of living a life of natural virtue, saved?
No, they are NOT saved by Sacraments of Justification, which are given by Christ to all Mankind for Salvation.
HOWEVER, at the Hour of their Death, Our Lord may decide in particular cases, to grant Clemency and Pardon and grant Salvation (depending our that soul’s acceptance) at their Judgement. Our Lord and Supreme Judge has that power to grant Mercy and Salvation beyond the regular Sacraments of Salvation.
Now, let’s make this clear: that we have such a Merciful God, means not that these forms of Judgement Day Mercy are LOOPHOLES. NO.
Whoever thinks this way, makes a mockery of God’s True Mercy extended to undeserving people by sheer Love, and not by some cold legalistic angle. It matters not if the Everyone-Is-Saved promoter is Catholic or not, clergy or not, God will not consider that such an Evil debasement of his True Love and Mercy is some sort of help to save souls. IT IS NOT.
The best to tell the whole world is this: Repent! Convert! Become a Holy (traditional) Catholic, receive the Sacraments of Justification and Salvation, especially Penance and Holy Eucharist OFTEN if not Daily. For if you do not do this, you will NOT be ready and Justified, clean of mind, body and soul, and cleaned out of Sins on your Day of Judgement.
And SOME may enter on an extraordinary basis by our Lord into Heaven, but it is indeed FOOLISH to not use or promote the use of Eternal-Life-giving Sacraments and instead of vainly and proudly expecting yourself (or OTHERS!!!!) that they will get into Heaven anyhow…..
That is NOT the Holy Way, that is NOT Catholic.
All Clergy have the obligation to promote Salvation by the Sacraments, and they have NO RIGHT to promote Salvation by Everyone (or Many)-Will-SomeHow-Go-To-Heaven.
Those Clergy who promote that…I will venture to say….have skeletons in their conscience closet….and they are making a MIRROR REFLECTION of their desire to Enter Heaven with Their Sins, without Repentance, without Conversion.
Those Clergy…are AFRAID of their Salvation….and they try to SABOTAGE the Plan of God, by making sure if ALL are Hostage to Eternal Damnation, then ALL ENTER TO HEAVEN because, well, the God of Love just won’t put us all into Hell…
…and the Clergy then doesn’t have to be so Holy, so good, ….so….free of sin….
The whole Church is upside down. Christ commanded Peter to sustain and support his fellow bishops and church leaders when they fall or are being tempted to fall. Why —- by continually making excuses for Bergoglio and attempting to interpret his intentions rather than his words —- is it that all these Cardinals, Bishops and prelates and church leaders are instead sustaining and supporting this Pope instead of being sustained by the Office of the Pope?
I reckon there is false humility running rampant here by men such as Cardinal Muller, Michael Voris and even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. These men think by staying discrete they are protecting the sheep, ‘the rank and file Christians”, but they are not. Instead they are allowing the wolves everywhere to continue preying and feeding on the rank and file sheep.
You prelates, you bishops, you cardinals, don’t presume limitations on the Holy Spirit and Christ the King!
“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s enemy shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10:34 – 36
L. Verrecchio: “As such, it only makes sense that he sees no need whatsoever of calling worldly men to conversion to Christ and His Church, as doing so would just needlessly provoke their hostilities.”
I know you’re entering the mind-set of the post-conciliar church when you write calling the world to conversion “would needlessly provoke their hostilities”, but it seems even worse than this. The modern church is reluctant even to form our consciences. One can see this in Canon 748 par. 2 of the Code of Canon Law 1983, which states: “It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.”
“Against their conscience?” “Against their conscience?” The primary mission of the Catholic Church is to form our consciences, to form us in the image and likeness of Christ Jesus, to speak that truth no matter what the consequences. These modern day prelates are derelict in their offices, responsibilities and duties.
Louis, I don’t even suppose the Cardinals have to subject Francis to a formal proceeding. Instead, I submit that all the Cardinals need to do is to meet and elect a new Pope with reason and that would be sufficient. Let there be two camps: the status quo is intolerable and an affront to God.
Dear Barbara,
We’ve been asking ourselves these same questions for many years now–how can we share the Faith with such confusion coming from the top? remember when JPII kissed the Qu’ran and Buddah ended up on an emptied Tabernacle in Assisi? , and people became cafeteria Catholics? Francis did give the modernists a shot of adrenaline. But his “I’m not here to convert anyone” is nothing we’ve not heard for years now. It’s hard to say exactly WHAT he thinks is necessary for a soul to be saved, but it doesn’t seem he believes it is the mission of the Church to make sure they get the teachings of Christ and understand the necessity of Baptism. We didn’t learn this from this encyclical, but it does seem to underscore it.
Whether or not he is addressing men of “Good Will” who will all end up being saved, it is serious error to define ALL eternal life as bliss for every creature:
” Eternal life WILL BE a shared experience of awe, in which EACH creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.
__
At the end of time, there will be both Heaven and Hell. Some creatures will be in Hell, with the damned Angels, ( our Lord mentioned at least one that was “destined” for it) AND He warned that the road is wide that leads to it, and MANY take it. Sister Lucia said many souls go to hell.
So whatever this is that Francis has been teaching in his Jesuitical fashion, it’s not what our sinful world needs to hear to instill the right fear of God’s justice in them, or to guide them to the cleansing water of Baptism and the post Baptismal absolution available for sins even men of good will commit.
This dereliction of duty seems part of the diabolical disorientation.
So we carry on, considering this as part of the chastisements we are under, warning people who will listen, and teaching them what they need to know.
Don’t lose heart because things reach this tragic stage. Remember who wants you confused and depressed–Satan loves a defeated warrior. Don’t give him the satisfaction.
As the Act of Faith reminds us, we have placed our confidence in the One I Who has revealed Truth to us, “, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.”
He warned us these times would come, and asked us to persevere to the end.
Not without His constant help.
—
Our pastor gave a homily giving a real life example for coping with the cognitive dissonance that comes from reading Laudato Si . He claims the media filters out Catholic teachings from the Encyclical, so we have to read the document ourselves, ferreting out the Catholic teachings they contain. Once we find the Catholic teachings, sometimes beautifully expressed, we can be grateful and relax. Then we can go back to believing the Pope is okay — never mind the ambiguities, implicit heresies, and contradictions in the document, which can be written off as the Pope’s personal opinion. Move along, nothing to see here….
p.s.
We also feel it’s not our place to judge or declare a Pope a heretic.
We’re comfortable with comparing what they say to Traditional teachings and Scripture, as that falls within our roles in life as Confirmed Catholics (soldiers of Christ) Parents, Grandparents and all the rest. We’re praying hard for Heavenly help, though, because we can imagine what a blessing it would be to have a Pope who was filled with wisdom and the gifts of the Holy Spirit to teach the Faith the way some of the pre-VII Saints have done- such as Pius X. .
==============
It is said that once a friend of his was upset about things a modernist writer had said against Pius.
” The pope’s answer was as characteristic as the smile that accompanied it. “Come,” he said, “did he not allow that after all I was a good priest? Now, of all praise, that is the only one I have ever valued.”
Pope Francis holds fast to the “New” Catholic faith. If I had a dollar for every time I heard people say “we do things differently now then before” I’d be able to relieve third world hunger. We have to wait my friends. We must wait for a future generation because this one will not be the one to bring about a restoration of true Catholicism. I have personally decided to ‘write-off’ (not dismiss but declare no confidence in) the current leadership and accept the current state of affairs as my cross. This pope is not the one to lift the Church to its rightful majestic beauty. It may take several popes for that to happen, so we must wait for the Church to first fully purge itself (which I think has slowly begun but there’s a very long way to go), before a true restoration can be undertaken.
We may be missing the “bigger picture” here…
It seems to me that Francis’ “we are all saved” theology is a continuation (or logical development) of “St” JP2’s teaching in the encyclical “Redemptor Hominis”:
“[The Church] is because of all that more serviceable for her mission of salvation for all: God ‘desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ … Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the “abstract” man, but the real, “concrete”, “historical” man. We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery. … The [Second Vatican] Council points out this very fact when, speaking of that likeness, it recalls that “man is the only creature on earth that God willed for itself”. Man as “willed” by God, as “chosen” by him from eternity and called, destined for grace and glory-this is “each” man, “the most concrete” man, “the most real”; this is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother.” (Encyclical Redemptor Hominis 5, 13)”
What is more, JP2 raised to the cardinalate the notorious heretic, Hans Urs von Balthasar, who infamously taught the now in vogue heresy (infamously taught by the likes of Fr Barron of Word on Fire ministry) that, “we have a reasonable hope all are saved.”
What I am getting at is this: Francis’ new “freshly baked” heresy didn’t originate in a vacuum. The ground was fertile and well prepared before he arrived in town.
Thanks, I needed that.
Don’t we wish it were that easy?
IMO – we are WAY too close to the abyss/cliff that the world could survive a few more generations at the current rate without God’s justice intervening soon. Don’t expect it to happen tomorrow, but it’s conceivable it could very well be within most of our own lifetimes.
–
In terms of geo-politics at least – the writing is on the wall. The opposing camps are already practically set up: Russia/China vs NATO/Australia/Japan etc.
The Middle East is on fire with no let up in violence in Syria.
Ukraine is only waiting for a match to be ignited in order to lit the bonfire.
WW3 may not be that far off. It could be the chastisement that awakens those catholics still in a slumber.
Read “A Hundred Years of Modernism” by Father Dominic Bourmaud for a clear expose of the root of the present bad philosophy that guides our shepherds.
Thank You Louie for stating the obvious truth. I don’t know what else this Pope can do to wake people up. But it looks like he is going to keep pushing the envelope until he is stopped.
The irony is that in, “attempting to interpret his intentions, rather than his words” they are disregarding the Church teaching, “de internis non iudicat Ecclesia” (the Church does not judge interior dispositions).
Mike Voris should put that in a post-it note in his laptop as a reminder… 😉
Apparently, some theologians hold that a pope can be deposed in the case of insanity.
Would that be another added pretext to depose Francis of his office? 😉
Dear In Hoc,
Fr. Gruner used to remind people regularly, that 100 years passed between the time the request was made to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, and the day the King of France was beheaded for that century of disobedience.
–With the centennial of the Fatima Apparitions is just 2 years from now, your concerns seem very appropriate. Our Lady has spoken about the difficulty of holding back the wrath of God who is already much offended by the sins of mankind; –the Angel with the fiery sword has it pointed at the earth in the vision of the 3rd secret of Fatima; and at Akita Our Lady foretold a deluge of fire worse than the flood. –which you pointed out before, (thank you btw) was direct punishment by God at a time when the laws of marriage were changed to accommodate deviancy–just as they are right now.
__
Our Lady said her Immaculate Heart will be our refuge. We’re counting on that. Our daily rosaries are a great time of comfort in her presence.
Pope Francis holds fast to the “New” Catholic faith. If I had a dollar for every time I heard people say “we do things differently now then before” I’d be able to relieve third world hunger. We have to wait my friends. We must wait for a future generation because this one will not be the one to bring about a restoration of true Catholicism. I have personally decided to ‘write-off’ (not dismiss but declare no confidence in) the current leadership and accept the current state of affairs as my cross. This pope is not the one to lift the Church to its rightful majestic beauty. It may take several popes for that to happen, so we must wait for the Church to first fully purge itself (which I think has slowly begun but there’s a very long way to go), before a true restoration can be undertaken.
Please disregard my duplicate comment above. Don’t know how that happened.
Oh, Barbara! I share your sentiments exactly!!!
I mean about wanting all of this to go away!
“He warned us these times would come, and asked us to persevere to the end.”
Thank you for the reminder, IF!
Alarico said:
“One can see this in Canon 748 par. 2 of the Code of Canon Law 1983, which states: “It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.”
“Against their conscience?” “Against their conscience?” The primary mission of the Catholic Church is to form our consciences, to form us in the image and likeness of Christ Jesus, to speak that truth no matter what the consequences. These modern day prelates are derelict in their offices, responsibilities and duties.”
———-
Excellent point. Did not know or understand the error of Canon 748 par. 2 of the Code of Canon Law 1983.
Now I do. Thank you.
Could one say…
“We have a certain knowledge that all are redeemed, ( because we have a Redeemer), and a hope of salvation, the knowledge of which is only known after death and Judgement”. ???
Read in light of ” many are called, but few are chosen”
And in light of “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.”
Mt 7:13-14
Pretext??
Dear Lorirevealer
“Thank You Louie for stating the obvious truth. I don’t know what else this Pope can do to wake people up. But it looks like he is going to keep pushing the envelope until he is stopped.”
When confronted by an expanding envelope, is it permissible to “return to sender?”
lol Thanks for giving me a heads up on the typo…
Meant to say “reason”.
🙂 🙂 🙂
E.M.,
–
That is MOST DEFINITELY not what the heretic Hans Urs von Balthasar meant by, “we have a reasonable hope all are saved.”
Watch Voris’ videos on this topic. Even he admits the obvious when confronted with this truth.
What he meant is simply this – “we have a reasonable hope ALL of humanity will enjoy the beatific vision.”
Perhaps, regarding some notorious evil doers like Nero, Stalin, Hitler etc, they will believe, like Bergoglio (YES, he said this) that their souls are annihilated at the moment of death. Which, I guess, brings us back to Louie’s post about Bergoglio’s belief in a “universal salvation.”
–
“What happens to that lifeless soul? Will it be punished? How?
Francis’ answer is very clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the bliss of living in the presence of the Father. The annihilated souls will not be part of that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is ended and this is the basis for the missionary work in the Church: to save the lost souls. And this is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the core. ”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/03/exclusive-translation-newest-papal.html
PS I think as Alarico mentioned above, we have to stop “making excuses for Bergoglio [or any one else] and attempting to interpret his intentions rather than his words”
Barbara & I.F.,
–
See my comment below to EM about Francis’ belief in “annihilation of [lifeless – whatever that means to him] souls”
–
“it appears that Francis does not believe one must be a Catholic…to be saved.”
I don’t think any of the post-conciliar pontiffs have believed that, certainly not JP2, as amply demonstrated through his Assisi scandals.
The encyclical is over 187 pages in length and uses over 4500 words to say what exactly? If Francis wanted to make a clear statement, he would have. We are told to say “yes” when we MEAN yes and “no” when we MEAN no. As the ostensible Vicar of Christ, Francis knows the difference between “yes” and “no”. An ancillary point to consider is the fact that his chosen “climate change” guru, atheist, physicist, mathematician and supposed science expert, John (a.k.a. Joachim) Schellnhuber, has declared that he did not say what he said in the past in regard to population control and other things he said but now says he did not say or mean. We are talking about the “pope” and we are talking about his chosen “expert” on the issue of “climate change”. Neither Francis nor Schellnhuber can offer us a clear, unambiguous answer to even their own supposed expertise; Francis’ being the expert on Catholic doctrine/spirituality and Schellnhuber being the expert in his field of math and science. Schellnhuber mentioned the sociological term, “behavior modification” in terms of changing our perception of “climate change”. Anyone familiar with the term “behavior modification” knows that if you can change someone’s behavior you can change their beliefs. That, I’m afraid is what is at the crux of this entire charade called “climate change” and its causes. For either a pope or a highly educated scientist to attempt to deceive people into believing that through their choice of words they can change our perception of the truth as it applies to the causes of the pseudo-science of climate change, they are mistaken. 2+2 will always equal 4 regardless of what either Francis and his cheerleader supporters claim. As for Schellnhuber the expert mathematician and scientist: We all learned that 2+2=4 in elementary school.
Dear Exceptional1,
I wouldn’t be so confident as to say “For either a Pope or a highly educated scientist to attempt to deveive people into beleiving that through their choice of words they can change our perception of truth as it applies to the causes of the pseudo-science of climate change, they are mistaken.” Using new words and giving additional new meanings to words definitely has power to deceive and change peoples beliefs and perception of truth when the masses and majority of people begin to fall into the trap of using the new modernist language like the words and phrases, gay, homosexual, gay marriage, partial communion, the sacrament of sex, theology of the body, we have the word disorder to replace sin and so on and so on. It is extremely dificult not fall into the new language trap when the devil and the modernists are in charge of creating this new language that all of us are mindlessly
using because of this new languages’ real power and our inevitable weakness to fight it.
At the First Vatican Council Archbishop Purcell posed the question, ““What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” Answer from the Council of Bishop, “There has never been such a case.” Honorius “never addressed such doctrines (heresy) to the universal Church…only to an individual” – in the case of Honorius, his to letter to Sergius (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII).
In other words, there has never been a public heretic – one denying defined truths publicly who has been Pope.
His heresy is manifest, and therefore all his ‘claims’ to any authority from Christ are null and void. If the heresy of an ecclesiastic (including the pope) is public, his authority is lost.
–
“Since the 16th century nearly all canonists and theologians who have addressed the issue teach that a pope who becomes a manifest (public) heretic “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence.”
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10
“The Church does not judge interior dispositions”. Very true: “Although they [modernist ‘Catholic’ enemies of Christ] express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church.” Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
–
The ‘judge the intentions’ doctrine that ‘excuses’ the ‘canonization’ of the likes of Wojtyla, belongs to a Church that is not the Catholic Church.
Dear In Hoc,
What makes that so tricky a proposition, is the fact that in order to accurately interpret the meaning of a person’s words, it often becomes imperative to understand the intentions of their speaker/writer, which is why we often search for same usages in other settings, as well as studying immediate context. Without direct access to interview him, we need to reserve some reasonable doubt about both.
Phrases like “it seems ” come in very handy. 🙂 🙂
Your Pastor is teaching you something very un-Catholic. One does not accept an admixture of heresy and orthodoxy as anything Catholic. “If anyone, including and angel or himself, preaches a doctrine different from what he has preached, let him be anathema [see Gal 1:8-9] The ‘portions’ of heresy is the sign that the whole is to be rejected.
The encyclical’s 172 footnotes make no reference to pre-VII magisterium… The problem of the ‘factus infidelis’ is that he and his Rites and his 1983 code of canon law, and his new catechism and his ‘universal authentic magisterium’ (a novelty from Paul VI, obedience to which JPII imposed upon the new 1989 profession of faith) and his VII revolutionary ‘spirit’ are not Catholic, and not a part of the Body of Christ. Most certainly the head of this organisation, which ‘abdicated’ Christ the King symbollically to the UN, is not the ‘one head of Christ and His Vicar’ of which Pope Boniface VIII wrote in Unam Sanctam.
–
“It is safe to say that we have reached a veritable breaking point.” Would that that were so, but I don’t think the Novus Ordo has a breaking point with itself because it is itself heretical and its worship, discpline and doctrine ‘broke’ with Christ’s Church many years ago. Those Sees that were occupied by Catholic Bishops are occupied by Novus Ordo men with Novus Ordo beliefs and Novus Ordo Rites – a Novus Ordo magisterium. How can the head of an organisation that substantially departs from the faith and worship of the Catholic Church, possibly find a voice of condemnation against itself from within its own Novus Ordo ranks? Christ was accused by the pharisees of being in league with the devil because he successfully cast out demons. He said plainly, “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” as the proof that His power to cast out evil was heavenly. Where is the authority from heaven within the ranks of the New Order government and college of Cardinals to cast out the devil? Those who have defected (even to one degree) from the Faith do not belong to Christ.
Dear Anastasia
God apparently agrees with you 100% : (Pascendi Dominici Gregis-Opening paragraphs SEPT. 8, 1907)
THE POPE’S OBLIGATION:
1…. “guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words… for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,” “vain talkers and seducers,” “erring and driving into error.”
-… these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and…to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. …
2. … the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom…
to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church…put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, …attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer….
3…. leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, …consider(s) their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. … regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church…, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. …in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate.
— they lay the ax …to the very root and ..diffuse poison .. so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt…, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; … there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance..
…they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality.
— Finally, they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
— … the security of the Catholic name is at stake. …. they really are, men who are badly disguised.
4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.
5. ..the Modernist sustains and includes within himself a manifold personality…; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer… http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
The road to Bergoglio is paved with Wojtylian stones…
–
A must read article:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1994_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVII.htm
–
“Already in the very heart of the inaugural encyclical of his pontificate (Redemptor Hominis), John Paul II reveals his thesis of a universal and subjective redemption which Pope John Paul II reads into Gaudium et Spes (no.22), and to the drafting of which he had collaborated during the Council: “By His incarnation, He, the Son of God, has in a certain way, united Himself with each man”(Tulle le encicliche dei Sommi Pontifici, ed. dall’Oglio).
–
And now, as if to confirm the fact that the inspiration of John Paul II has not changed, Christoph Schonborn warns us in L’Osservatore Romano that the “key text” of the new “Catechism” is taken from Gaudium et Spes (no. 22) (L’Osservatore Romano, 12-1-1993)…
–
…’The myth concerning the Vatican’s severity with regard to progressive deviations appeared as being the result of wild and useless imaginings. Up to this very day and in no case whatsoever have we ever resorted to, nor imposed canonical sanctions or penalties (on anyone): we have simply limited ourselves to admonishing the guilty wrongdoers’ (keynote-speech delivered at the Christian Episcopal Conference, cf. Courrier de Rome, 97 [287] November 1988).”
I.F.,
–
Re. your comment above:
We can interpret the words of someone – and with an added context even more so. Bergoglio has given us 2+ years of said context, through speeches, interviews, sermons, letters, an “encyclical”, an “apostolic exhortation”, through a phony “canonization”, and so on…
Sure we can, and we do it regularly. Our point was merely meant as a reminder that God, and next the Pope are the only ones with certainty about it all.
If by “certainty” you mean intentions – yes I’d agree (Salvemur above has a good quote from “Pascendi” by Pius X).
Turin
Pope Francis to visit Waldensian temple
” The Pope’s relationship with the Protestant world is rich and varied. There have been numerous audiences and meetings. The attitude he had towards the Reformed churches, which he inherited from a rather traditional family context, changed – he said so himself – thanks to his grandmother. “When I was four years old — it was 1940, none of you were born yet! — I went out with my grandmother,” he told a Salvation Army delegation in an audience in the Vatican at the end of 2014. “In that time, it was thought that all Protestants went to hell. On the other side of the sidewalk there were two women of The Salvation Army, with that hat that you all have…. Have you worn one? And I remember like it was yesterday, I said to my grandmother: “Who are they? Nuns?”. And my grandmother said: “No, they are Protestants, but they are good”. Therefore, because of your good witness, my grandmother opened the door to ecumenism to me. The first ecumenical preaching I ever heard was in front of you. Thank you very much.”
You mean the quote from Pascendi that we posted? 🙂 🙂
Never mind; saw the posting by salvemur. Oops. Pascedi must be popular…
Interesting comments on the Waldesian blog sites—a mixture of angry responses from Waldesians who feel betrayed by their leaders letting in the wolf; others who expect apologies from the Catholic church for their historic persecution; and others from Catholics who feel their Pope is about to whitewash another heretical sect.
Maybe only the leaders are delighted with this new ecumenism?
Good point, salvemur. It’s hard to find a Catholic these days who really is without fail.
A brilliant wee antidote to ‘Laudato Si’, from the future:
–
https://franciscanum.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/laudato-sie-mi-signore-the-encyclical-which-needs-to-be-written/
Gloria t.v. reports June 22nd:
“Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, the prefect of the Congregation for Religious, spoke in an interview with the Brazilian magazine Veja about a deep reform that is going on at the moment in the Church.
–Quote: “We Catholics lived for centuries with the idea that we need to convert people in order to bring them closer. But we cannot act as if we were the owners of the morals.”
======
— 55 years of this modernist intimidation was more than enough. We will not be silenced by this work of Satan which attempts to call it arrogant “triumphalism” to speak the truths: –that there is no other Name by which men are saved; that all men are in need of the great gifts of Catholic teachings and Baptism into Christ’s Church–the One, True Church on earth.
=====
–When the Pharisees objected to Jesus’ followers praising Him as he entered Jerusalem, telling Jesus to rebuke them to silence, He responded
” I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out. ”
(Luke 19:40)
He strikes me as a modern day Sillon.
And speaking of crying out…. A bit of GOOD news???
apparently grass-roots efforts can still have an impact as Saturday’s million-person turnout in Italy against the government’s leftist gender ideology had socialist jaws dropping….
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/06/far-exceeding-expectation-one-million.html
In Hoc, I just reread your comment and it brought to mind just how wrong-headed John Paul was: When Mary and Joseph brought the Baby Jesus to the Temple to offer Him to His Father, Simeon said “Behold this Child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel…”
–
That means Simeon who was directly inspired by The Holy Ghost, knew from that inspiration that Jesus Christ came to save all – but that some would ‘fall’ and some would ‘resurrect’ at their Judgement.
–
So modern popes are directly contradicting words inspired by The Holy Ghost, in the Bible the Church has always taught is indefectible.
–
This is not just cherry-picking either. Jesus Himself said many, many times that some would see, some would hear, some would believe, some would stay with Him: AND SOME WOULD DO NONE OF THESE.
This great – thanks for digging out the paragraphs. Yes, words are used for propaganda all the time. And visuals too. Look at advertising on TV (those of you who still hold out hope for that demonic device!).
–
The greatest success in propaganda in our lifetime is the new ‘mass.’ Totally viewed now by most Catholics as just fine.
–
The difference between an ad campaign which gently drips poison drop by drop into our minds, and the new ‘mass,’ is that the new ‘mass’ was brutally thrust upon us – as brutally as anything the communists did in poor Russia. The effect is the same no matter what method you use.
–
Why do we find ourselves taking a breath of clean, fresh, pure air when we read the old encyclicals? Wonderful.
Yes. And this Novus Ordo Church will fall. I think this has been prophesied many times – the Church will be torn asunder – the Faithful will form small Catholic communities, and the majority of those who’s faith has been tainted and withered will perish.
–
That for me is the stumbling block. Yet I know using my reason that this is not only possible, but will happen – it started before the French Revolution and is reaching the tipping point now.
–
To be fair, I think the majority of Catholics who are not able to see what we here see don’t see because they can’t imagine the Church going down a bad road. They don’t know Scripture, and they don’t know history, they don’t know prophesy, and they have been taught the ‘love and hope’ mantra to the exclusion of anything else.
Yes. And this is just what bishops all over the world are doing. Let’s send Nancy Pelosi a letter admonishing her, but let’s not make a public fuss. How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Poor grandma! It was thought to be too shocking for a four year old to learn that those outside the Catholic Church were in grave danger of hellfire. Yes it would have been a shock. But Granny would have said “my little one, those people don’t know all the truth about the beautiful Church Jesus has left us. Let’s say a little prayer that He will help them believe.”
Poor Lord Jesus, betrayed again. When He was in agony in the garden, this is what he saw.
More good news. Our Lady told the Fatima children that God was pleased with their sacrifices! Imagine knowing that what you have tried to do pleases HIM?
–
We have this wonderful confirmation that our little penances and sacrifices will actually please God!!!! If we are in the state of grace, of course.
–
This thought gave me real joy today in all the doom and gloom.
St. Padre Pio seems to concur (saw this this morning in his letters –compiled in the book: “Listening to God”) #61 on keeping useless thoughts away that dim the intellect….
“Be careful to carry out all your actions, even the most insignificant, with the upright intention of pleasing God, casting aside even the slightest thought of self -interest. What greater gain can the soul have, than that of pleasing the Lord? Always have a humble idea of yourself, being convicted that any services the soul can render to God, even if they are many, are still of little account. And if they acquire a luster and value, it is by the grace of God.”
Ephesians 5:10-14: “Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.
Jesus said to his disciples:
“But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword” (Luke 22: 36)
___
The Bishop of Rome said to a rally of young people in Turin, Italy:
“People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian”. (June 21, 2015)
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-says-weapons-manufacturers-cant-call-themselves-christian-184139430.html
______
From :Preaching the Word commentary series
Considering that Jesus Christ is “the light of the world,” and that we are “light in the Lord” by virtue of our incorporation in him, and, further, that we have a positive charge to “Live as children of light,” as well as a negative responsibility to “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them” — the Church needs to wake up!
So Paul concludes this section with verse 14:
“Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”
We do not know whom Paul is quoting here. Many think it was a line from an apostolic baptismal hymn sung as the convert emerged “sacramentally from the sleep of spiritual death into the light of life.”
Whatever its origin, Paul’s application is clear. Some people who are “light in the Lord” are slumbering and need to wake up.
It is an obvious fact that Christians who are asleep do not know it.
It is possible to be slumbering light and even to be well-regarded by others in the Church (especially by others who are in the same state).
It is possible to be asleep and appear awake. It is possible to pray while asleep, mouthing phrases others have used before.
It is possible to sing a hymn without being awake to the words. It is possible to walk while asleep and end up in harm’s way. It is possible to live a dreamy life of unreality in the netherland of inaction.
How about this for a pretty explicit mention of hell and souls tormented therein:
“And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast [Anti-Christ: human] and the false prophet [human also] shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Revelation 20:9-10
“They don’t know Scripture, and they don’t know history, they don’t know prophesy, and they have been taught the ‘love and hope’ mantra to the exclusion of anything else.”
Exactly.
I’d add for some poor catholics papalotry also plays a big part in this. I think it also has something to do with an inability to realize how much evil the human mind is capable of doing when acting through the promptings of Satan, perhaps due to an inability, a blindness to look into their own sins (hardly surprising, given that confession is practically non-existent in NO-land).
“How unbecoming is the worldly ambition of being the greatest, to the character of a follower of Jesus, who took upon him the form of a servant, and humbled himself to the death of the cross! In the way to eternal happiness, we must expect to be assaulted and sifted by Satan. If he cannot destroy, he will try to disgrace or distress us.
Nothing more certainly forebodes a fall, in a professed follower of Christ, than self-confidence, with disregard to warnings, and contempt of danger. Unless we watch and pray always, we may be drawn in the course of the day into those sins which we were in the morning most resolved against.
If believers were left to themselves, they would fall; but they are kept by the power of God, and the prayer of Christ. Our Lord gave notice of a very great change of circumstances now approaching. The disciples must not expect that their friends would be kind to them as they had been.
Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons.
At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves.”
Matthew Henry’s concise commentary
Luke 22:35-38
Dear Ever mindful,
Our Haydock footnotes ( the Douay Rheims Bible) says:
[Jesus] reminds the apostles that now is the time of danger and slaughter–that their master will be reputed among the wicked, and all that is foretold of Him shall be fulfilled. ”
–“Wishing also to insinuate the violence of the assaults they themselves will have to sustain, he mentions a sword, but does not reveal all, lest they should be too much alarmed; nor does He entirely suppress the mention of it, lest sudden attacks might overpower them, had they not been forewarned.”
____
It’s a definitely literal interpretation, of events involving physical violence -of the passion and afterwards. (along with all the spiritual warfare).
============
According to wicki , the Matthew Henry you quoted became a Presbyterian Minister in 1687 before writing his commentary on the Protestant Bible. 1708-1710. [ We try to rely on approved Catholic sources- and don’t know if there are some who would agree with him]
========
.It makes sense to us that Our Lord was warning the Apostles that there would be no more “walking through the crowds” kind of protection that they had been used to before the time of His passion. Spiritual warfare was often his topic during the years He instructed them. Things were about to get very physical–that was what changed.
“
Wow! in the same talk where Pope Francis called Christians “Hypocrites” for manufacturing or investing in weapons, he also spoke about the failure of world powers to stop the Nazis during the Holocaust, asking why bombs weren’t used to halt transports to concentration camps. Were these bombs only to be made by and used by non-Christians?
Yeah, the problem was well past the Rubicon long before Francis. Give this a quick read and count the heresies:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998.html
Thanks for digging that out. I thought there was something a bit off about the quotes and commentary.
I find Poor Francis has become more and more incoherent. The sheer quantity of words that he pours forth is overwhelming, especially as it is so hard to understand. Those who think everything he says is golden must have tons of comprehension that I don’t have.
Dear I F,
I was aware that Mathew Henry was not Catholic…and have often tried to balance the two concepts…
1) If they are so wrong about the Eucharist, how can anything they teach be trusted??
2) Is there no value in well articulated truth borne out of deep scriptural meditation?
For example…today’s Mass Gospel reading…is there any aid to Catholic meditation , despite it being from a Protestant source ??
“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.”
Matthew 7:13-14
See concerning the way of sin and sinners, that the gate is wide, and stands open. You may go in at this gate with all your lusts about you; it gives no check to appetites or passions. It is a broad way; there are many paths in it; there is choice of sinful ways. There is a large company in this way.
The way to eternal life is narrow. We are not in heaven as soon as we are got through the strait gate. Self must be denied, the body kept under, and corruptions mortified. Daily temptations must be resisted; duties must be done. We must watch in all things, and walk with care; and we must go through much tribulation.
And yet this way should invite us all; it leads to life: to present comfort in the favour of God, which is the life of the soul; to eternal bliss, the hope of which at the end of our way, should make all the difficulties of the road easy to us.
This plain declaration of Christ has been disregarded by many who have taken pains to explain it away; but in all ages the real disciple of Christ has been looked on as a singular, unfashionable character; and all that have sided with the greater number, have gone on in the broad road to destruction.
Can we often hear of the strait gate and the narrow way, and how few there are that find it, without being in pain for ourselves, or considering whether we are entered on the narrow way, and what progress we are making in it?
Matthew Henry’s concise commentary
No man is safe in speaking unless he loves to be silent.
Thomas a Kempis
See at bottom of post for my comment.
The above was meant as a reply to CraigV’s comment (not sure why it ended up at bottom).
–
Here goes my response:
CraigV,
That was a most interesting speech to read by JP2. It condenses succinctly the whole “raison d’etre” of his pontificate. The references to “Redemptor Hominis” are numerous. I honestly cringed at some of the things that I read, “At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.”
The whole thing reads like a document of “Modernism 101 for dummies”.
I think it can safely be said that there is but one document that needs to be read in order to get into the mind of Wojtyla, “Redemptor Hominis”, and there is but one event that one needs to consider, Assisi. His whole pontificate revolved around these two facts.
–
Now, another very interesting thing regarding the speech by JP2, is that even as he spews his modernist heresy, line after line, ad nauseam, at the end, he fails to go as far as Bergoglio, who is adamant about his rejection of any kind of missionary efforts. These are the Polish pontiffs words:
“This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race. Nor does it mean lessening our missionary efforts, to which we are bound in obedience to the risen Lord’s command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19).”
–
We are dealing with a new kind, a different level of apostasy when it comes to Bergoglio; or as Louie commented in a previous post, Francis lacks any remnant of “Catholicity” still found in his predecessors. I think this is important.
–
So, I think there is an argument to be made that the designation of “formal heretic” when it comes to Francis may not even be relevant, it is his whole manner of speech, writing and conduct that is uncatholic, as if the man himself did not practically possess one iota of Catholicism in his being.
PS
Here is the link to the speech by JP2: https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998.html
PPS This is Louie’s article about Francis’ lack of Catholicity I made reference to in my comment above:
https://akacatholic.com/catholicity/
Dear Em,
Please see our response a bit further down, as this thread is getting rather narrow.
Dear Ever mindful,
Re: the use of Protestant writings–we offer a few things for your consideration:
The serious danger to souls, is why we avoid recommending Protestant writers to others. Many “Catholic ” people lack the necessary foundation in the Faith today, to protect them from going astray in whatever way the author did.
As on online forum notes:
–“Faith is a divine gift — the pearl of great price. You can lose that gift. It’s like a flame that God lights in us. We have to make the flame grow by feeding it with good fuel.If the flame is weakened — or we let the winds of heresy blow on it, it can go out. .. if you haven’t been strenthening your faith it could be pretty serious and lead to mortal sins of apostasy or heresy.”
–“Protestant books not only have false teaching (directly), but they have a Protestant attitude that the reader will absorb unconsciously. Even when a Protestant author is writing about the truths of Christianity, there is a false tone or attitude that can affect the reader. Remember what is being excluded … there is no love of the Blessed Virgin, no love of the Saints, no reference to the true Presence of Christ in the Sacraments, there’s a spirit of independence from the Church that Christ established … and in almost every case there’s subtle Pride at work – a rebellious spirit that proclaims oneself as sufficient for understanding God’s will.”
====
Apologist (and convert) Steven Ray, writing of the dangers of non-denominational Bible studies, Steven Ray, warns:
” An unwary Catholic who steps into the Protestant Bible study usually does so with no intention of leaving the Catholic Church. They just want to study the Bible.
Protestants think of themselves as people of the Book, not hampered by human tradition. [BUT] No one reads the Bible objectively.. whether that be Fundamentalist, Calvinist, Pentecostal, Baptist or one of many others. Everyone depends upon tradition, but not everyone recognizes it.
__
“Bible Christians,” based on their tradition, study the Bible with these premises:
1. There is no binding authority but the Bible alone.
2. There is no official binding interpretation or interpreter.
3. The Bible is perspicuous (i.e., easy to understand) and can be interpreted and understood by anyone.
4. An individual can and should read the Bible and interpret it for himself.
__
Catholics, based on their Tradition, study the Bible with different premises:
1. The authority of the apostles and the Church preceded the Bible, and the Tradition of the Church is an equally infallible authority (2 Thess. 2:15; CCC 80–83). The 2. Bible is part of the apostolic Tradition.
3. The authoritative interpretation of the Bible is the prerogative of the Catholic Church (1 Tim. 3:15; Matt. 18:17; CCC 85-88).
4. The Bible is not always easy to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16) and needs to be understood within its historical and contextual framework and interpreted within the community to which it belongs.
5. Individuals can and should read the Bible and interpret it for themselves—but within the framework of the Church’s authoritative teaching and not based on their own private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20-21).
__
These basic differences place the Catholic and Protestant worlds apart even though they are opening the pages of the same book and accepting it as an authoritative revelation from God. The Catholic position is biblical and has been espoused from the first days of the Church. The Protestant position is unbiblical and is of recent origin. The Catholic is in full continuity with historical Christianity; Protestants are in discontinuity.” Catholics … need to be aware of these differences and be ready not only to filter out false conclusions but also to guard themselves against the false underlying assumptions (e.g., that everything has to be found and proven explicitly in the Bible).” “Catholics who are unaware often begin to adopt a Protestant mentality without knowing they are doing so, gradually learning to suspect the Catholic Church and trying to prove everything from the Bible.”
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/should-catholics-go-to-non-denominational-bible-studies
=======
Bottom line to us, an additional helpful insight is not worth the risk that someone will take a liking to a heretic and end up losing their Faith–especially with so many good Catholic writings to recommend -at our fingertips today.
Dear Em,
P.S.
It may help you to compare this issue to that of the “Catholic” Universities who invite Famous pro-abortion politicians or statesmen to give their commencement addesses. (as Notre Dame and O’bama)
Their arguments invariably cite all the “good” work and accomplishments of the speaker, and claim their talk will have nothing to do with the issue of abortion. Yet we instinctively sense that the rejection of so central a truth as when life begins, and such a necessary laws as the 5th commandment–
contaminates the character of a person , disqualifying them as a role model or speaker at a Catholic institution. Why can’t it be kept completely separate from their talk, rendering it harmless? Because the underlying disobedience to God’s will and rejection of Truth, change everything about a person and the way they think. If we would recoil as easily from every heresy, we’d have an easier time doing as St. John instructed–not opening the door to anyone preaching another doctrine–lest we inadvertently become complicit with them.
Yes. It’s hard to find anything written or spoken in the past 60 years that is wholly Catholic. One has to dig around, and circumvent a lot of garbage to find the odd nugget. I avoid reading much from just prior to VII and what came out of VII because it’s so maddening, but ‘know your enemy’ is a good thing I guess.
I would even advise staying away from neo-Catholic material. There are such wonderful older books that say pretty much what needs to be said. Modern Catholic books and magazines often have just that little taint of either modernism or Protestantism which is dangerous.
–
Let’s face it, millions of Catholics have had their faith eroded and/or watered-down by decades of swimming in a neo-Catholic swamp of bad preaching, and suspect books and magazines (and diocesan newspapers too).
An example of ‘modern’ Catholic material that is tainted with just that little bit of misinterpretation would be Jeff Cavins Bible Study “Epic.” We had this at our parish last year. I stopped going after three sessions. There was just a slight fishy smell to it that I couldn’t get past. A VERY VII flavour to it.
–
We have access to most of the writings and sermons of The Fathers and Doctors, and many, many Saints to guide us. There are also many very good, solid Catholic bible commentaries out there from the great past. No real need to chose anything VII-ish.
Only 474 people so far have signed the petition asking the college of cardinals to initiate proceedings against Francis due to manifest heresy!
🙁 🙁 🙁
If lay catholics don’t care about a “heretic-in-white” occupying the throne of St Peter, why should we expect the college of cardinals to move a finger against Francis, which would require much toil, sacrifice, and persecution on their part?
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition2CardinalsReFrancis
Francis’ latest “freshly baked” heresy coming piping-hot right out of the oven… 😉
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/pope-francis-blames-catholics/
From my point of view at least, it seems to me immaterial whether Francis is a material or formal heretic, he is simply not a catholic.
All unfortunately l very true. This is what makes it so extremely difficult for Protestant converts these days. Depending on what brought them through to conversion, some see the dangers readily, others like the familiarity with their roots. We generally found ourselves raising our children using pre 1960 materials, but vigilance is always necessary, and a person’s best bet is to read the encyclicals and early catechisms, praying for the wisdom and understanding we received in Baptism and Confirmation, to safeguard us, along with the daily Rosary.
Dear In Hoc,
There are a variety of reasons people are reluctant to sign petitions. Some aren’t worded in a way that accurately reflects their views, so they prefer to write individual letters. Some people express fears of recriminations and/or misuse of whatever information is required of them, and rightly so, as we’ve heard of past cases where lists were used by anti-Catholic organizations which think nothing of employing violence and intimidation. We also live in a time where masonic conspiracies are said to rule secretly, and even Our Lady has warned us (Quito and Akita) of such infiltration into the top of the hierarchy .
If the blogs and com boxes on the internet are already letting the good Cardinals know they have support, which they have acknowledged, why are petitions thought to be necessary? The Church is not a democracy in which the majority rules. And their actions should be based on the moral need for them to act to rectify the situation for the sake of the salvation of souls.
Is there some other purpose these petitions serve that we’re missing?
Dear Indignus Famulus
Thank you for all those well reasoned points which make perfect sense.
“Your word I have hidden in my heart,
That I might not sin against You.”
Psalms 119:11
Psalms 110:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it: his praise continueth for ever and ever
I hear you about not wanting to use one’s real name, but it’s not even necessary to use your real name to “Sign” the petition…
–
I sense a certain apathy here – believe me if vast scores of catholics were REALLY concerned about this, we would have thousands (At least) of signatures by now. It is so tragic – even the petition on the synod on the family has barely gathered 5500 signatures!
https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/pope-francis-appeal
–
This is not about “democracy”. This is about the laity reminding the cardinals of their sacred duty, which they supposedly should guard even if it requires giving up their life, of guarding the deposit of faith. And as such it is their duty to ascertain whether a pope holds the catholic faith or not when he shows signs of heresy.
–
Imagine, for the sake of argument (which is obviously not going to happen), that the petition reached the intended 1 million signatures. Don’t you think that would start making at least some cardinals or bishops a little uncomfortable? It would definitely be making big news in the trad blogosphere, and outside it too probably. It would help to make awareness on the need to depose Francis for heresy, which is desperately needed right now.
–
As long as Bergoglio is sitting in the throne of Peter, he continues to inflict incalculable damage on the Mystical Body of Christ.
This is the Great Apostasy.
I don’t know what’s worse…the New Age / New World Order /pagan gibberish in this encyclical, or the fact that the vast majority of catholics don’t give a damn.
Bring on the full blown physical chastisement. I can’t take it anymore.
Dear In Hoc,
It’s obviously not apathy among Traditional Catholics–judging from the blogs. Our guess is it’s rather ignorance of the Faith among the vast majority who still identify as Catholics today who are really “Catholic” -in-name-only according to the polls. They see Francis as a breath of fresh air– somebody who understands their desire for affirmation without condemnation, and is willing to bend or ignore the rules to give it to them.
__
We saw an old video clip of a comedian the other day, joking about how great it is having a Pope who’s like the “cool dad” of a high school kid, who lets him drink at home with his friends.
___
How many cardinals think of him that way, too, we wonder?
___
Years of letter-writing left us with numerous official thank-you’s –and Papal blessing certificates -by-mail. You may be right about large numbers—Italy managed a million at a rally last week and raised a few eyebrows. But that wasn’t for a papal recall. The numbers are likely not there for that. Face it, we’re a remnant right now. Hopefully growing daily. Our Lady of Fatima really did provide us with hope, though. But when is “the end”–when her heart triumphs?—that’s the question.
Dear Craig,
Before you make that request official, have you heard anything about anybody being told by God to build a fire-proof ark? 😉 😉
We’re a remnant now, as you say, that’s for sure…
But I do think there’s a certain degree of apathy, even among self-described traditional catholics. I don’t think, of course, that not signing one of those petitions necessarily is a sign of that, but 470 signatures??!! That’s the number of students in a small school.
C’mon…
It’s been obvious to me that this pope is no catholic for a long time. It’s refreshing to find that I have a lot of company on the right blogs. This pope is out of his mind and it’s so plain that the emperor has no clothes you’ve got to wonder about the madness of the world that mentally contorts itself around his lunatic perspective. I studiously avoid reading ANYTHING he says because it upsets and nauseates me. Thank you for this blog.
I want this pope to go away and take our president with him. What a nightmare the last few years have been.
Hear hear. I’m copying your post and sending it to my friends. You, Alarico, are my hero.
I signed this petition a long time ago. Shockingly low numbers. No wonder the Cardinals think they can get away with doing nothing.
Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.