How often those who defend the Catholic faith from invitations to error on the part of recent popes in turn invite the ire of other Catholics. No matter the topic, the same unconvincing rebuttals are simply repeated over and over again.
Defending the indefensible
June 25, 2014 61 Comments
Bravo. The most memorable statement: “ours is not the Faith that comes to us from the current pope, it’s the faith that comes to us from the apostles”.
That’s something that I’ve known within myself for decades. That’s why I bristle at the liberal invasion into the Church, that wants to turn everything into a social convention.
From what I’ve seen, it’s something that most Protestants (or Bible Christians) don’t know about Catholics; lots of Catholics don’t know it, either .
It’s something that Francis surely doesn’t know, or care to know.
Only one thing to add. And the Apostles got it directly from God
So don’t NOBODY try n mess with it!!!
In trying to comprehend how it could be possible that so many of our tenants of faith can be so summarily dismissed, it forces us to try to understand from where this idea stems. Either the faith is or it is not. Yet, is seems that there is a third alternative…and that is that it is basically impossible to grasp, unattainable for the masses….and so we choose the least common denominator. Let me once again quote from Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishops of Chile in 1988:
“In the spiritual movements of the post-concilar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.
“The ‘truth’ is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a ‘triumphalism’ that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice. If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth.
I have to believe that those who know the Truth are not doing everything they can to combat what is going on. The reactive approach, as opposed to the pro-active approach, is resulting in more and more people falling away from our Church. Our mission in this life is to save souls….not sit back and let what’s currently happening keep happening. Drastic times call for drastic measures and we continue to sit on our hands while he pray. Popes of years past prayed….and they also took drastic measures to preserve, promote, and defend the Faith. Were they wrong? What we are doing is NOT working.
Are you suggesting that most people wouldn’t be able to understand the Truths of the Faith, so they turn to anything around them which is easier?
If so, we believe Cardinal Ratzinger was making a different point in what you quoted, suggesting that we need to be vigilant and courageous in proclaiming that we have the fullness of Revealed Truth and that everyone NEEDS it, while other religions do not, and if we fail to proclaim those facts,we are depriving them and failing to carry out Jesus’ mandate.
When he mentions triumphalism, he is speaking of how the world perceives us as arrogant for making the claim that we have something no one else has, to offer.
Jesus told us all to become like little children in our humility, but also didn’t make it necessary to have a lot of education to have and hold the Faith.
I have a feeling the Pope is about to bring the hammer down on right wing dissidents. It is reported that when meeting with the FFI, he said that if the Pope says something that is black is white, you better darn well believe it’s white. In other words, I think the patience of the Pope is running out.
We think there is a lot more to the problem that just the reluctance of many who know the truth, to join in the battle.
We’re battling principalities of evil, and it takes personal growth to reach a state in our relationships with God where our desires to love Him combined with the things He allows us to become aware of and understand, prepare us to be his vessels. Can you sense that in all the people he’s drawn to this blog?
What do you suppose he meant by that? If something is black, it’s black, and his saying it’s white is not true. If he puts himself above Truth, he’s wrong. That sounds like another thing you’d hear from the Devil’s forked tongue, and it’s going to have all the Protestants adding to their on-line lists of proofs he’s the Anti-Christ..
He’s already shown very little patience with TLM lovers, in fact, a lot of his name-calling has been directed our way—who has that list, deMaria or salvemur?
Apparently it was a quote from St. Ignatius. I think he means that he is the ultimate arbiter of the truth and that he will start to enforce orthodox doctrine as he sees it.
Thanks. I found it on the net-St. Igatius of Loyola said
“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.”
That makes more sense, because things often “appear” other than they really ARE–especially in the area of morality today.
Although sad to say, this Pope has not really been doing and saying things that would engender that level of trust, even on spiritual matters–like ecumenism and reception of the Eucharist in a state of Grace, for example.
We in the U.S. may not be around much longer anyway–have you heard the news today?
There’s a trailer out for a movie called “The Interview” –a looney comedy in which two talk-show guys go into North Korea to assassinate Kim Jung Un.
Kim found out about it and sounds like he’s ready to launch missiles.
This’ll be a first–World War III started by Hollywood.
Brick by brick!
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
PS Santo Subito;)
Share this video around Folks. Brilliant piece, Louie. There are so many good quotes so if I steal them for comments eslewhere I’ll make sure to put the link in. “Look. Our Lord did not say that the gates of hell will not prevail against those who dwell outside the Church.” So many people use the ‘gates of hell will not prevail’, as the raison d’être for sitting on their hands or, worse, clapping them, as souls slip into hell like mollasses out of tipped up jar on a hot day. Imagine if St Peter and St Paul had gone, ‘oh well, Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail, so let’s fishing for fish, and then kick back with some JD and watch the sun set’?!?
“Ours is not the ‘faith of the current popes’, but the Faith handed down from the Apostles” [which pre-concilliar Popes handed down without error (for the most – Liberius is a strange one)] regardless of how imperfect their private lives were.
‘that they never behave in a way as to UNDERMINE THE TRUTHS OF THE FAITH”, – the Holy Ghost would NEVER be responsible for this undermining which has been happening consistantly for years from various Bishops of Rome.
p.s. The Billy Graham/pope analogy is perfect.
“teachings that…mislead as to the Doctrine of the Faith…the greatest threats in our day come from the official organs of the Church, because these are the most believable based upon the authority invested in the source…”
suffice to say, no Pope ever preached such a thing, until…
I don’t live state-side, but from what I’ve heard about KJU’s missiles, they’ll probably hit me before they hit you guys.
‘brick by brick!’ meanwhile as the dominoes of modernism continue to, by wittled worthless woodite, fall fall fall, the structure of ‘brick-by-brick’, becomes ever more dominant.
While I agree with what Louie is saying in this video, I’d like to see traditional Catholics move beyond this to become more proactive in the propagation of the faith. In particular, the criticism leveled by liberals at the supporters of tradition sticks insofar as we often turn a blind eye to the unique constellation of obstacles offered by the modern world to the continued survival and flourishing of the Catholic Faith. We tend to blame these things on the machinations of a group of dissidents or apostates rather than on real problems which require serious consideration.
For example, take the advance of liberalism in the field of biblical exegesis. Since the turn of the last century, the traditional interpretation of Genesis – which, let there be no doubt, is the foundation of the Gospel message – has been steadily eroded by the advance of naturalistic evolutionary scientism. While liberals have made a steady stream of concessions to accommodate modern science – which, more often than not, has resulted in thoroughly undermining the credibility of Sacred Scripture – conservatives have done little to nothing in the way of offering an intelligent alternative. Yes, we believe, but we do a poor job of making a reasonable defense of that faith, with the result that we are accused of fundamentalism.
For another example, take the liturgy. Believe it or not, there were legitimate problems with the way the laity assisted in the liturgy prior to Vatican II. While liberals have resorted to all kinds of novelty and innovation in an attempt to actively involve the laity in the liturgical life of the Church – which, more often than not, has turned the liturgy into something positively frightening – conservatives have done little to make the virtues of the old Mass appear relevant to modern man, or explain in any kind of detail how the old Mass enriches our spiritual life. Yes, we actively participate in our beloved traditional Mass, but we do a poor job of making that participation appreciable for others, with the result that we are accused of pharisaism.
For yet another example, take the issue of ecumenism. The relatively new phenomenon of cultural pluralism has brought with it a need to change our approach to the work of evangelization. While liberals have become so accommodating of other religions so as to put the Catholic faith on the same level as these – which, more often than not, has completely undermined the mission of the Church – conservatives have done little to express genuine appreciation for the fragments of truth found in other religions. Yes, we may privately acknowledge the varying degrees of truth found in other religions, but we do a poor job of demonstrating that appreciation, and are more likely to contrast the errors of other religions with the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church, with the result that we are accused of triumphalism.
I could go on, but I think the point is sufficiently clear. If tradition is to find wider appreciation, we must demonstrate its ability to provide solutions to these and similar problems. At the very least, we have to acknowledge these as real problems, and not just the product of bad formation or even apostasy.
That’s not a relief. lol. We need all the good Catholics we can muster right now..
Seriously, though, we took a look at the trailer, and there’s enough deliberately, humiliating crassness and goading disrespect there to motivate a person with his mental portfolio and terror-connections to sub-contract the job if he can’t do it himself. And don’t forget how many of his people worship him. We may be about to pay a price for the “freedom of speech” we so treasure, that goes so unbridled as this.
This is another one of those tinderboxes like the Cartoons mocking Mohammed.
Wow Matthew, you said a lot there.
Some of our effectiveness depends on the numbers of people to which we have access though. Are you thinking of “we” as individuals or as those who publish articles, etc?
Personally, our contact with Muslims and Jews, for example is rather limited, and the ones we have come across who are willing to discuss religion, have appreciated a good “debate” about what’s missing, rather than what we have in common. The fact that we tell them Jesus said they can’t get to heaven without accepting Him, and receiving the Eucharist, is particularly interesting to them.
Regarding your point about the Mass, we find in our local parish, people respond to our enthusiasm about the wonderful prayers. We’ve shared them and they agree about how rich they are. We were just thinking of posting some of them on local bulletin boards–at the supermarket for example, with an invite to welcome newcomers, along with Mass times and locations.
What solution/ideas do you propose? If you were a Christian living in the early 4th century suffering persecution under the emperor Diocletian, do you think any group of Christians would be able to offer much opposition to the Roman authorities in trying to stop the persecution? But in God’s own chosen time, He sent Constantine the Great to crush the emperor Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian bridge…
God is in control of history. For the laity, all we can do is offer prayer and penance and our lives as a sacrifice to the Most High. The “proactive” part rests mainly in the clergy. Right now, Rome is firmly held and occupied by modernists/apostates, so we can’t expect a solution to come from the hierarchy. Quite the contrary. The hierarchy is part of the problem, not the solution. We need to trust in the Holy Spirit that God is in charge, and he will sort things out in His own good time. In the meantime, we can offer to God the sacrifices of our duties in our states in life.
“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”
This is a resounding riposte. Just to be clear, however, motive is susceptible of proof. As one Wikipedia entry states, “[m]otive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction”. This point would appear to be illustrated by an example of “arson for profit” listed on the U.S. Fire Administration Web site here. The second example of “arson for profit” states that “[t]he man’s mounting debt and other evidence assisted the police with the conviction”. Other motives for arson have been listed as including vandalism, excitement and revenge.
So, for example, if Jorge Bergoglio could be shown to have a documented loathing for “traditionalism”, aka Catholicism, perhaps as contained in something like a Little Book of Insults, then that could be suggested as a motive for (the charge of) treating the FFI unfairly.
“Yet, is seems that there is a third alternative…and that is that it is basically impossible to grasp, unattainable for the masses”
Huh? It is impossible to grasp for the millions upon millions of faithful illiterate catholics that have faithfully held onto the faith throughout the centuries?
What about the millions of native Americans in Mexico that converted to Catholicism after the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe?
What about St Bernadette Soubirous, an illiterate girl at the time of the apparitions, and still struggling to learn the catechism during that time?
What about Blessed Francisco and Jacinta, also illiterate at the time of the apparitions, both of whom had still not had their first holy communion?
What exactly are you trying to say here?
There’s a big difference between “IS” and “APPEARS TO BE”. Get your quotes right. You are playing the protestant game here of coming up with phony quotes and/or translations.
PS Above comment addressed to Gangli.
“we may privately acknowledge the varying degrees of truth found in other religions, but we do a poor job of demonstrating that appreciation”
When have catholics, for 1900 years, manifested public “appreciation” for false religions created by men (even the varying degrees of truth found within them)? Never, to the best of my knowledge at least. As far as the Roman Pontiffs would go, quite the contrary. The only evidence the conciliar documents provide for Catholic appreciation of Mohameddans in the past is ONE PRIVATE letter from the Pontiff to a Muslim leader in Africa sometime during the 8th century or thereabouts (go figure!!) saying that we share belief in ONE God (i.e. we share a monotheistic religion). That’s it. Does that sound like a lot of evidence? I wouldn’t think so.
What purpose would it serve to publicly declare “appreciation” for any kernels of truth found within false religions? Would it bring the souls of those steeped in error closer to the truth of the gospel? I don’t think so. It seems to me like it would be something akin to an exercise in post-V II ecumenism where we all hold hands, smile, and say “you’re OK, I’m OK” now let’s all hug together and pray for peace in an interreligious ceremony…
Have you read Dominus Iesus by Cardinal Ratzinger? Just curious. I found it useful when debating liberals. It lays out the difference between supernatural Faith, which Catholics have and mere belief, which other religions have. It points out how these two different things have been mistaken as the same in our day. It also states that the Orthodox are deficient and Protestant communities cannot be called churches.
Yes, exactly correct. Jorge is slick enough so as not to get nailed on any particular point. He always provides enough ambiguity so that his defenders have enough ammunition to convince the fence-sitters (and themselves) that he is not a radical liberal who is determined to destroy what is good and put in its place that which is popular.
But the pattern of words and conduct is there. The pattern can’t be seen unless one realizes his motive. Then everything makes sense. He’s not a loose cannon at all. He is paving the way for the “unimaginable” and “unthinkable” changes, sometimes retreating a bit to disguise himself. It’s all in line with what he calls “discernment”, which for him is the same as for any liberal politician: don’t go too far too fast, so as to prevent much of a backlash.
Don’t forget all the saber rattling against Putin and Russia. Or talk of going back into Iraq. There are still those frothing at the mouth to bomb Iran. We live in crazy times.
When reading about VII it sounds like what Cardinal Ottaviani was up against when battling Cardinal Bea.
Yes, the Apostles + Paul. I’d once asked of a radical homosexual campaigner, “Who knows more about Christianity, Paul (who was inspired directly by God) or modern theologians with their PhDs?” Of course, we know how he answered that one.
Episcopervians now answer the same way. Jesus said there is only one valid reason for divorce (adultery by the spouse). But the Episcopervians added a wholly new and unjustified justification: those like gene Robinson can’t live without deviant thrills. I’m sure they had whole box-fulls of PhD concocting explanations.
Whatever was concocted, we’ll soon be hearing Catholic clergy like Dolan parroting.
There will be a high Mass at St. Leo in Detroit this Friday on the solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I believe this is the first TLM there since VII.
I could never suggest that we are incapable. For 2,000 years we have developed by Scripture and Tradition the content of faith. Yet, I thought Cardinal Ratzinger was giving us an insight into understanding, not excusing, the development coming from Vatican II. I think it was a question not so much of understanding as inevitability of results. After all this time our approach has not led to unity. We are so very much spinning our wheels with ecumenism it seems like it is the primary mission of the Church. We have our own evangelization problems within. It is time to look to our peoples’ souls. After all the cause of disunity is sin. There is a lot more involved with the reason of this situation which have little to do with theology. In this document Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking about the Society of PPX. Their only issue is Vatican II and what followed. If that could not be resolved, how can we expect that all the 1000s of other sects will be?
You’ve got me there, James. Not familiar. Care to post a few sentences of elaboration? (For the benefit of me and also of other readers.)
Furthermore, on the topic of shrinking away from ascribing motivation to the bad guys:
Do we not immediately understand much/most of what Bernardin pushed for his whole life, once we hear that he wrote his will to state that he wanted the Chicago gay choir to sing at his wake? Do we not then have a much better idea of whether he was falsely or justly accused of being a homosexual predator?
To me, not assessing motivation plays right into the hands of the liberals who use ambiguity to disguise their aims. (Just as they use (“judge not…” as a way to try to squelch criticism of their permissiveness.)
So, in a think-tank atmosphere that should prevail here, there could/should be convincing arguments developed to thwart the liberals’ efforts to take Francis’ motivations off the table. E.g., that might include using boilerplate such as, “we can’t know for sure, but it certainly looks like…” Francis has a pattern of demoting conservatives like Burke and hand-kissing homos, so it is reasonable to assume that he is in line with the forces of political-correctness.
Or maybe saying, “we can’t judge his soul, but it is possible to asses his psychology”. Just thinking out loud here.
Ottaviani was the leader of the curial conservatives during the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), despite being nearly blind throughout the entire course of the Second Vatican Council and afterwards. At the Council Ottaviani worked with, amongst others, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, CSSp. During the last of the Council’s preparatory sessions, Cardinal Ottaviani engaged in a heated debate with Cardinal Augustin Bea over the subject of religious liberty. Ottaviani, while opposed to the separation of Church and State and granting equal rights to all religions, supported religious tolerance—suppressing public manifestations of non-Catholic religions when possible. Their confrontation became so intense that Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini had to intervene, noting his disappointment at such a “serious discussion”. Ottaviani also argued during the debates on the liturgy and on the sources of Divine Revelation, which are understood as Scripture and Tradition in Catholic theology.
Mr. V, I have no doubt that this latest video hit home for many Trads who are isolated from family and friends because they are now labelled “judgemental”. Padre Pio is the only priest who bore the stigmata. He bore the signs of Our Lord’s passion and crucifixion before, during and after Vat 2. Could Our Lord have used this holy and humble priest (another Christ) to manifest the sufferings of His Bride, the Catholic Church?
Padre Pio, pray for us!
Bigfred, It was also Bernardin that got communion in the hand rammed through in the US, by dubious means, after three different attempts… I believe. Why was he so bent on CITH??
I have in mind Clement of Alexandria, Constantine, Lactantius, Sozomen, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Augustine of Hippo, among others, who openly acknowledged the true words spoken by the pagan Sibyls for the purpose of converting souls to Christ. The opinion that pagan Europe was entirely devoid of all true religiosity prior to Christianity is largely a product of her ascendancy. Augustine, who was very cautious in his appraisal of the positive value of pagan philosophy and prophecy, nonetheless devoted a chapter of his “City of God” to the question ‘Whether before Christian times there were any outside of the Israelite race who belonged to the Fellowship of the Heavenly City’, which he answered in the affirmative – noting, of course, that even in such cases, salvation came to them by Christ. As I read them, these early Fathers had a broader conception of the True Faith than is common today.
Or again: Let us be mindful of that which adorns the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. For among those magnificent images of the Creation and the Fall, and placed strategically between the Prophets of the Old Testament, we find no less than five pagan Sibyls hailing from Europe, Asia and Africa. Why? To graphically underscore the fact that Christ came not merely to redeem and fulfill the prophecies of the Jews, but to offer salvation to and fulfill the righteous hopes of all mankind, which the Sibyls represent.
In a modern context: Look, for example, at the evangelizing work of Scott Hahn (a former Presbyterian minister) or Steve Ray (a former Baptist preacher). We may disagree with them on points of theology, but these men are doing the tremendous work of converting Presbyterians and Baptists to the Catholic Faith. They do it not by beating their former co-religionists over the head with their errors and heresies, but by explaining how the Church offers them not only the fragment of truth they found in their various sects, but the Fullness of Truth which is Christ Himself. That’s not “baiting with honey”, either; it’s being able to express true appreciation for where people are at while never failing to demonstrate how much better it is in the Church. That’s evangelization which is effective in today’s cultural pluralism.
As a final note, I found a very nice example of what I was thinking of in regards to successfully communicating the depth of the traditional Mass. Please watch the following video by Michael Sestak entitled “A Meditation on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”: http://bit.ly/1jmP9HL We need much more of this sort of thing.
Thanks, James. I wish there was video of that 🙂 Well, maybe in the coming October — Paprocki vs…. who?
I’d think that’s because the liberals are bent on eliminating all symbols of Traditionalism. In the (liberal-made) movie, “The Good Pope”, a big deal is made that J23 mostly refrained from appearing at the council because he didn’t want to influence them (yeah, right) — but he *did* appear there to argue against the Latin Mass. Regardless of what actually occurred (I’d assume J23 lobbied as much as he could secretly), that scene in the movie demonstrates what liberals think is important enough to attack the most.
Btw, the movie also featured the supposed back-stabbing bad guy (Trad), who had also been Roncalli’s friend in the seminary. maybe that was based on Ottaviani.
However, that said, I’m no fan of communion in the hand, precisely because you don’t know how many Bernardin clones (homos) are around dispensing it. Imagine if Gene Robinson one day becomes ordained by Francis.
I don’t suggest shrinking from criticism where criticism is due. But it also can’t stop there. The conservatives were successfully routed at Vatican II because they failed to anticipate where the liberals’ arguments would find real traction with the otherwise neutral majority and to formulate an appropriate strategy. The Coetus Internationalis Patrum was formed much too late, and was really only successful in being reactive to the advances of the liberals under Cardinal Achille; Cardinal Bea was successful in thwarting the Coetus’ call to remove the non-Catholic “observers” who were poisoning the atmosphere, and everything went downhill from there.
Why not take the liberal wind out of Francis’ sails by becoming vociferous and active proponents of that part of his ministry which perfectly aligns with traditional values? I.e. helping the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the imprisoned? Anyone who is seriously thinking that to do so would be to “cooperate with the devil” has been thoroughly duped by the same.
The most fertile ground to preach Catholicism is these days, very ironically, right within the Church itself. That reminds me, I’ve got to soon head out into the mainstream Catholic sites to start posting links to resources like this article/video of Louie’s.
When Frankie unveils his master plan in October, I expect more than a few converts.
Regardless of what was actually said, and of what the quote actually means, the story has some innate credibility because of the time that Frankie talked about how he is “no right-winger” but that he had a reputation for being a martinet in his first administrative job.
I hope he is stupid enough to start a big crackdown. That will reveal what he is and lead to defections.
But, it would be all for naught if the crackdown victims stay mostly silent and passively accept things, as the FFI founder seems to be doing – so far. Then Frankie gets away with it.
A “trilingual rosary”? Sounds interesting. (Pun perfectly intentional.)
Yes, liberals win because they know how to influence the masses. So it’s time to fight fire with fire, without going over the line and doing ‘whatever it takes’, as they do.
I absolutely agree that the battlefield lies in those at the middle who can go either way. They are highly influenced by the mass media, which we don’t have much of, so a prime goal is to reveal the media’s bias – that done best by using concrete examples. An example: citing credible sources about Bernardin’s choir, and pointing out how that was mainly suppressed.
Amen and amen to your last point! Francis wins a lot of ground by (cynically) using the poor, then pseudo-conservatives respond like idiots by siding with corporations, Wall St and (presumably) Louis XVI.
Btw I also think you are exactly right in using V2 as an example of what they will be doing in October. Or by looking at the way that liberal feel-good philosophy has taken over the Western world, for that matter – along with any underhanded tricks that were employed.
Too bad they don’t parrot the alternative theology we heard somewhere a long time ago– that Jesus said “except for fornication” by which He could have meant their “decree of divorce” only applied when there were legitimate grounds for (today’s annulment) believing that no marriage existed in the first place.
Thank you for all those examples.
You wrote: “After all the cause of disunity is sin. There is a lot more involved with the reason of this situation which have little to do with theology”
While no one can argue that sin is not the root problem of all disunity, (beginning with Satan’s rebellion against God) , as Louie has pointed out so eloquently in this and many other blog posts, what our leaders who are visible to the whole world, believe..i.e. their Theology has more to do with it than most people imagine.
Remember the old saying “One picture is worth a thousand words.” ? Multiply that by 10,000, now that pictures fly around the world so quickly we don’t know the word for it. Then recall how photos of St. JPII kissing a Quaran, led to confusion and mass defection from the Church, even as his more hidden words put in print that we Catholics have to keep our Dogma in all ecumenical dialogues.
We submit to you, that It is the glaringly stark contradictions between 2,000 years of clear Church teachings, exemplified by the lives of Saintly men and women who kept to them, and so many modernists in positions of authority, who have “come out” so to speak since Vatican II, which we have witnessed so profoundly causing LOSS of Faith, and preventing and/ or making great
difficulty for, the coming to it.
It is not our “approach” which has not led to unity, but the age-old Snake(s) in the Garden, making any approach counterproductive to salvation..
And Kim’ people suggested Obama gave the green light for this movie..which of course no one will take seriously (accept those conspiracy theorists who home school and get audited regularly).
Would any president really go so far as to endanger or sacrifice American lives to create an excuse to bomb (nuclear facilities in) a country currently under the protection of Asian powers?
Sounds as ridiculous as the idea that we had any warning before Pearl Harbor.
Thank you for expressing that so well.
One perfect example of the futility of ecumenical prayers that scandalize billions;
On Pentecost a prayer was sent up to the god of fortresses along with the Qua ran’s declaration that the True God “has no associates”. Followed by a prayer from our leader and Vicar of Christ, to the actual True God (we hope he believes in).
Abbas went back to Israel and fewer than two weeks later, began cooperating with Netenyahu by duplicating Israel’s village to village Palestinian search for 3 Israeli teens abducted that week. Hamas praised the kidnappings, but claimed they were not responsible. The news now reports a new Intifada beginning, and an end to years of “relative” peace with the arrest and incarceration of over 350 Hamas members.
We’re not defending Hamas, don’t get us wrong–just pointing out that the Vatican’s prayers for peace, seem to have led directly to a new outbreak of violence. Yesterday’s headlines said Palestinians now call Abbas a traitor, and are rioting against their own police.
See what happens when you pray to false gods -side by side with the ONLY TRUE ONE WHO IS 3 IN ONE-especially on the Feast that Celebrates the coming of the 3rd person on the first Pentecost?
To all above
This thread is awesome.
It brings out the heart of the problems we face, including our relative helplessness in the face of such long-term, diabolical planning and execution, all of which is so extremely (deliberately) hard to prove to the masses of people in need of that proof
While we charitable acts should not be eschewed because of Francis’ promotion of them, they will not be seen as proof of anything major. True Catholics have always done so, and in hidden ways, according to the instructions of Our Lord. (No trumpet blowing-not even as a counter revolution)
Let us never forget Our Lord’s words “see, I have warned you” ..
He knows all of this, and much more about diabolic disorientation and the Devils almost unlimited innovative ability in that regard.
St. John Bosco’s dream of the Two Columns is very hopeful to us today:
The Ship, directed by the Pope, continues on after two councils (meetings of his captains) are followed by terrible storms and attacks. The two columns-one surmounted by Mary, help of Christians; the other larger, surmounted by the Eucharist. From them breezes come periodically which seal up the holes in the ship, made by enemy attackers–books and incendiaries.
Suddenly a Pope falls, wounded, but is helped up.
a second time (St. John confirmed a second Pope) the Pope is falls and is killed. His successor is elected so quickly that news of the death coincides with news of the election. SUDDENLY SOMETHING UNEXPECTED HAPPENS . The new Pope calls his captains together, and a great calm covers the sea.
(Sounds to us like the consecration of Russia and a Vatican III to fix things.)
Not saying we should sit on our hands, just that maybe we should hang in there a bit longer without pushing the panic button. We seem very close to this prophecy being fulfilled.
Infinite “Amen” s to that!
Have you read the little book of some of his letters to friends and religious, entitled “Listening to God with Padre Pio”.
We regularly purchase copies of it to hand out to people.
#38 reads in part:
“Let us follow the Divine Master up the steep slope of Calvary loaded with our cross; and when it pleases Him to place us on the cross,….let us thank Him and consider ourselves lucky to be honored in this way…to be on the cross with Jesus is infinitely more perfect than merely contemplating Jesus Himself on the Cross.”
They are all short one or two paragraph gems, followed by Scripture quotes.
Thank you, Indignus famulus. I just love Padre Pio. I am currently reading “Padre Pio, Man of Hope.” “Pray, Hope and Don’t Worry”.. That is his message during these troubling times!
p.s. to rcaamo
We’ve reviewed what you’ve written a number of times, and still are not sure we gleaned your true intent from them, as some of the statements may have sidetracked us from your main point. We notice you mentioned in your second comment under #2 above, the disunity among faithful as a result of sin.
Are you then trying to say that the sins you refer to are being committed by some in groups like the SSPX and FFI and therefore reflect what Cardinal Ratzinger foresaw as the sources of disunity? Or are you referring to the sins of individual Catholics not in those groups, who remain in the Church at least outwardly, while continuing unrepentant in what has always been condemned as sin? Please clarify that if you choose to continue this discussion. God Bless.
You make many great points here.
But since you seem to be running out of new adjectives to describe “Frankie” with your now familiar, flawless, fearless alliteration, can you reassure us that you are not a disgruntled former victim of his Argentinian See, now living in dire poverty as a result of his successful redistribution of wealth in your village?
Indignus, if only I had known Happy Jorge in those long ago days, I would be able to tell the tales of how he probably redistributed The Last Tango in Buenos Aires to himself. And what’s-his-name.
[Did I break my streak on a technicality?]
Your point was very well made.
We might point out, however, that few lay persons today, (fellow posters excepted for the most part) would be capable of such an undertaking, not being philosophers or theologians,
Pope Benedict’s concern about the dying out of the Faith and it’s replacement by acts of social service, was expressed many times. His main hope for the Church was the growing appreciation for the Eucharist.
[By no means. We noticed a few Jorge’s being substituted here and there, realized there are only so many f words that are useable, and assumed the rest]
Regarding Padre Pio, there is another book of a consoling nature, God’s Doorkeepers. It includes stories of Padre Pio, Brother (St.) Andre of Montreal, and Venerable Solanus Casey. I can’t remember the author’s name, as I have loaned it to one of my sons. But Brother Andre is a great intercessor and friend of St. Joseph, and Fr. Solanus was similar to him. I have relics of each (some of which are also loaned to that son) but I still have a couple to carry in my pocket at work. It’s a fairly recent book, and a light read, but of course, they’re all pre-VII holy men and, no doubt, happy to intercede for us!
Paul VI’s freedom for the Church led, and leads, – as was predictable – to the tyranny of pluralism and the slow marginalisation of the Church. Gregory XVI was right, & V2 was catastrophically wrong: the Church’s position was wiser than it knew – & now that it has thrown that position away (deliberately), we who live among the wreckage can now see just how wise that position was. This is a perfect illustration of “repenting at leisure” because of the foolishness of others.
Those who wanted Dignitatis Humanae, now have inconveniences like rows over sexual ethics to deal with, because the Church was condemned by Paul VI to ask for (what is in fact secular) freedom instead of faithfulness to Catholic doctrine. I hope the SSPX will say, as they should, “I told you so”. A Pope who asks for secular freedom, cannot complain when those who also value it, but are not Catholics, choose what the Church doesn’t approve of. Dignitatis Humanae led with perfect logic to condom machines in Rome. And where there are condom machines, a society unrestrained by the fear of God will end up approving abortion as well. Vatican 2’s pestilential error in Dignitatis Humanae leads to the approval of abortion by Catholics. Dignitatis Humanae’s false doctrine is a direct cause of the abortion plague. As one would expect. The freedom of “the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” is worlds away from the freedom of the sort that the Church was condemned to by the Pope 🙁 If tragedy had meaning within a Christian view of reality, that choice by the Pope of secular freedom would be a tragedy.
“Apparently it was a quote from St. Ignatius. I think he means that he [= the Pope] is the ultimate arbiter of the truth and that he will start to enforce orthodox doctrine as he sees it.”
## It’s one of St Ignatius’ “Rules for Thinking With the Church”:
“Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed. ”
I think he is simply using rhetorical exaggeration to make a point – he cannot be recommending self-deception, because that is a form of lying, something which the Church utterly forbids in all circumstances. His contemporary St Philip Neri, who founded the Congregation of the Oratory, held St Ignatius in very great esteem – and this is what Cardinal Newman, who brought the Oratory to England in 1847, says of his spiritual Father:
“He was an enemy to all rivalry and contention. He always took in good part everything that was said to him. He had a particular dislike of affectation, whether in speaking, or in dressing, or in anything else.
He could not bear two-faced persons; as for liars, he could not endure them, and was continually reminding his spiritual children to avoid them as they would a pestilence.
He always asked advice, even on affairs of minor importance. His constant counsel to his penitents was, that they should not trust in themselves, but always take the advice of others, and get as many prayers as they could.”
If St Philip, “the Second Apostle of Rome”, who found liars unendurable, so greatly esteemed St Ignatius, that is proof that St Ignatius was no liar.
Matthew, this is just to say I agree with everything you’ve said in your post 8.