On June 24th Pope Francis hosted a three hour luncheon with nine prominent evangelical Protestants. Recent reports claiming to offer shocking details about the private meeting are making their way around the web causing considerable angst among traditionalists (aka Catholics).
The Toronto based Catholic Register, for example, ran a story quoting the meeting’s chief organizer, Pope Francis’ so-called “brother bishop,” Tony Palmer, of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches.
According to the Register, Palmer said the delegation asked the pope “to offer us further insight into how we can make a common declaration — a public, visible joint declaration of our unity in the faith and unity in mission,” calling the effort “uncharted territory.”
He went on to say, “Pope Francis agrees with me when I say diversity is divine, but division is diabolic.”
Also quoted by the Register was Vatican spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica who said:
“The Holy Father’s passion for authentic ecumenism flows from the heart of a seasoned pastor who has spent many years of priestly and episcopal ministry in building bridges, not walls. What he does now as Bishop of Rome is in continuity with his ministry in Argentina, and in perfect harmony with the message of the Second Vatican Council and the teaching of the Church.”
The most disturbing report comes from luncheon participant Brian Stiller, Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance, who alleged on the WEA blog that Pope Francis said:
“I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”
It is clear to me from reading the reactions of many that it’s necessary for all concerned to take a step back to separate the facts from the allegations; what we know from mere speculation, what is likely from what is unlikely, etc. For instance:
– We DO NOT KNOW if the Holy Father is working on a joint declaration of unity with evangelical Protestants.
– We DO KNOW that Pope Francis believes that unity with heretics is possible apart from their conversion.
– We DO NOT KNOW if Fr. Rosica’s comments are as close to an official response as we can expect.
– We DO KNOW that in the matter of “authentic” ecumenism, “perfect harmony” does not exist between the teaching of the Church and the Second Vatican Council, much less the “Holy Father’s passion.”
– We DO NOT KNOW if the topic of religious diversity came up during the meeting in question.
– We DO KNOW that Pope Francis considers religious diversity a gift.
– We DO NOT KNOW if the quote attributed to Pope Francis by Brian Stiller is accurate.
– We DO KNOW that Pope Francis has little time for safeguarding the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine and even less interest in converting heretics.
At this, the point should be fairly obvious.
In the end, as troubling as these reports about the Holy Father’s meeting with the evangelical Protestants may be, they tell us nothing whatsoever about this pope, or about the terrible crisis in the Church of which he is an active agent, that hasn’t been known for quite some time.
Think about it:
It used to be borderline amusing to sarcastically say, “Newsflash: The pope is Catholic” whenever the media would report with feigned surprise some reaffirmation of Catholic teaching offered by the Roman Pontiff.
Today, it really is news when the present pope speaks well in defense of the true faith.
As for those occasions when the Bishop of Rome speaks and behaves like a modernist, or demonstrates an utter lack of concern for the mission of the Holy Catholic Church, or shows open disdain for her venerable traditions?
Well, that’s just Jorge being Jorge; the very same man elected by the College of Cardinals to put the brakes on whatever momentum toward tradition might dare to make its influence felt in the Church following the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.
– We DO NOT KNOW if there exists in the Church today even one Cardinal with the wherewithal to call on Pope Francis to refute the many occasions of scandal his words and deeds have invited by demanding that he make an unambiguous and public statement affirming his acceptance of the totality of the Holy Catholic faith.
– We DO KNOW that the time for such a Cardinal to stand up in defense of the Lord’s flock has long since arrived.
” authentic ecumenism” – ‘scuse me but geeze la****weeze – when was the last time this—————frackingTM———ecu-H-lector———hierarchy gave a weezle’s smellies about CONVERTs?
given that Jorge grew up in the Marxist mindset of RecoveringKatholics – those of us who grew up with committed protestants know that Bergoglio’s sweet-by-and-by is nothing more than a fools idea of ‘grass is greener?:
Beg pardon to Baptists (and methodist), but the richness come from the OLD – not Luther fa cry in out loud. Remember, it was Protestantism that forced ‘hillbillies’ beyond the pale.
p.s. I remain anti-nuecumenism (=don’t bother); but I’d be interested the last time anyone out there heard a priest teach plain like the ‘old time preacher man’?
I tried to find the average time of a semi private audience with the pope. I usually hear 30 minutes to an hour, but 3 hours…It would be interesting to find who else has been given such a largess greeting. I would hope Cardinal Burke, who must be wondering about what is going on more than even we, might step forward and begin to ask questions.
My gestalt is that many (not all) Evangelicals are all about big hair, big houses, big boobs, big makeup, big cars, mega-churches and bad music. They give a creepy lip service to Jesus, but so much is about feelings, ie: “the burning in the bosom”. There is no well thought out theology, and everyone is his own arbiter of Biblical interpretation. Mormonism is similar, though even more bizarre. They contracept and they embrace in vitro fertilization creating many souls left frozen in deep-freezers to be forgotten and destroyed in a generation (many catholics do this as well)–this is a widespread evil. They may, God Bless them, not abort as often as even Catholics, and they don’t embrace unnatural marriage, thank God. But there seemingly is that poverty of intellect and no buttress of Tradition as have Catholics.
Tony Palmer says: “Pope Francis agrees with me when I say diversity is divine, but division is diabolic.”
It’s the first half of that sentence which makes it so scandalous, although these scandals are coming so fast and furiously now, that we may soon run the risk of getting inured to them.
If we were talking about skin color or classical music choices, diversity is a blessing in the variety and spice it adds to life. But when we’re talking about beliefs that reject the Divinely revealed truths of salvation, there is nothing Divine about that diversity. What is left for us to agree on, are all the things we already have in the Catholic Faith, that their founders didn’t reject.
For the Pope or any Catholic to imply that they have anything we lack, which is what statements like that do, or to refrain from correcting that error of thought, again points to an agenda other than that of the Catholic Church, as mandated from it’s beginning, by Our Divine Lord.
““I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”
If these are the true words of Francis, then he is a heretic and sedevacantism is the ONLY proper response.
One reason you may have noticed a difference between other protestants and the Mormons, is that they are more like the Mohammedans–not folks who broke away from the Catholic Faith, but, believers in someone who was deceived by a vision.
According to the account their founder, Joseph Smith, told in 1838, he went to the woods to pray about which church to join but fell into the grip of an evil power that nearly overcame him. At the last moment, he was rescued by two shining “personages” (implied to be Jesus and God the Father) who hovered above him. One of the beings told Smith not to join any existing churches because all taught incorrect doctrines.
Obviously, that included the One, True Catholic Faith, and also obviously the vision and light were Lucifer. Similar to Mohammed believing the Archangel Gabriel told him Jesus was just a “great prophet” and not the 2nd person of the Trinity. The teachings he says were given him on golden plates that later disappeared, explain the differences and weirdness of the doctrines.
Rejecting the mandate of Jesus to go teach and Baptize, would make him disobedient, but doesn’t tell us what he believes about it being his duty to do so. He seems to relish breaking rules. That implies he recognizes them as existing rules. Sinful yes. Scandalous, yes. Heresy in this instance, (not being canon scholars) in our opinion, unproven.
We therefore disagree that if he actually said those words, the only option is sede.. (But there is a forum on that topic).
There are supposedly some 250 Cardinals and Bishops who have celebrated the TLM since Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I’d like to take this as an indicator of genuine faith on the part of these prelates. Surely there could be found among them at least one who would pose the question directly to Pope Francis.
To ditto a response from another blog– (CMR):
“Fr. Leonard Feeney said it best: “To detect a fraud, there is no surer way than this: If a man says he believes that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are really and truly present in the Blessed Eucharist and, yet, does not tell non-Catholics about this Eucharist, he is a fraud. If a man pretends that he loves non-Catholics and — as evidence of this love — offers them some other gift, like social improvements or assurances of his own goodwill toward them, rather than the great Gift of the Bread of Life, he is a fraud. If a man pretends to love the Eucharist and at the same time defends those who scoff at it and blaspheme it and says they are good and sincere people who are on the way to saving their souls, he is a fraud. It does not matter who he is, or what prestige and dignity he might have either in the world or in the Church, or what reasons and excuses he might be able to offer for his behavior, if he acts in this way, you can know, without any doubt, that he is a fraud. It is that simple.”
Hat tip to John Henderson’s response at http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/07/the-hermeneutic-of-contoh-i-give-up.html
Check it out— Pat does a nice job.
..one who would pose the question…
which question—“are you the anti-Christ?” 🙁
Who would ever have believed that it would come to this–an off-color atheist commediean like Penn Jillette would agree so wholeheartedly with Father Feeney about how a true Catholic should behave: He said
“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”
I personally debate the sedevacantist issue on a daily basis. I keep going back to the fact that God cannot deceive. How would He grant us a true pope who was obviously hell-bent on the destruction of the Church, as Bergoglio undeniably is? I am truly confused, and the idea of “keep praying” is losing it’s steam for me. I’m seriously beginning to think that the truth is right in our faces but we are refusing to accept it.
Celebrating the TLM is not a sign of true fidelity to the actual Catholic Church (see the FSSP).
I was thinking of what Louie mentioned in the post, i.e. “if there exists in the Church today even one Cardinal with the wherewithal to call on Pope Francis to refute the many occasions of scandal his words and deeds have invited by demanding that he make an unambiguous and public statement affirming his acceptance of the totality of the Holy Catholic faith.” In that vein, the question would be simply: “Will you, Holy Father?” Or, to make it easier, he could simply request that the Pope take the oath against Modernism.
The best bishop of Rome THE HERTICS EVER Had.
Hi Louie. Call me Chicken Little, but if you ask me the sky *IS* falling. Now there is a report in the Catholic Herald specifying the church and the pastor that Bergoglio will visit in July to “apologize” to them….
I can’t wait to see what crimes and sins Mr. B. thinks we need to apologize to the protestants for. No doubt the biggest sin in his mind is… being Catholic.
The church Bergoglio will pay “a brief ‘private visit’ to” is the Evangelical Church of Reconciliation. ” Fr Lombardi said the Pope knew the church’s pastor, Giovanni Traettino, from Buenos Aires, where the Pentecostal pastor participated in ecumenical events with Catholics, especially Catholics belonging to the charismatic renewal movement. ”
A quick Google search of Giovanni Traettino shows that he is also “the permanent coordinator of the AFI” (The Apostolic Fellowship International). The home page of their website announces that they will have a “International Apostolic Conference” in May 2015 …. in ROME. Maybe Mr. B. will stop by to meet and greet and do some more apologizing. No, I don’t know that. Yes, this is all speculation. But if we wait until the sky really is falling then its too late to do anything about it. (Maybe Chicken Little is really a children’s story about the Apocalypse.) I’m sure you realize this. I guess my point is that we need to warn others who are not aware of this. And if they think we are jumping to conclusions and making false assumptions — so what? At least make them go through the exercise (again) of denying the Truth that is right in front of their faces. Sooner or later anyone who really cares about the Church and loves God will have to admit that yes there really is a fundamental problem with this papacy. And then the question becomes what should we do about it? And yes, this is an especially important question for priest, bishops and cardinals. Let’s keep them in our prayers along with the Pope.
There is one of those liberal jargon phrases which applies which is “reaching the tipping point”. Once we reach that point the momentum is on their side. Take as a current example the push for “homosexual marriage”. The liberals/modernist claimed the homosexuals just wanted to be accepted until they reached the “tipping point” and then they put their battle plan into full gear with the momentum on their side. Bergoglio is pushing the Catholic Church towards a “tipping point” (in this case a cliff). Are we already at the point where a photo-op of the Pope with a bunch of wanna-be protestant leaders is considered “normal”? What is the message that this image sends? The pope is one among equals? The Catholic Church is one among equals? In many ways this is worse than Assissi. ( By the way Louie, the image is backwards left-right. Is this your way of sending a message that there is something wrong with this picture? Or were you just testing us? 🙂 )
Our current research discovered these important connections:
From Brian Stills (WEA) in a week-long interview on the 700Club Canada:
–He knows Canada’s situation -born and raised preacher/leader
.–Canadian Catholic Church was 47% of population, great influence, but from 1960 to 1980 because of the sexual revolution/ use of contraception and abortion, fell to a shadow of former self in just 20 years..
In the same period, 3 Big Protestant sects combined- Methodists, Congregational and Presbyterians and all became followers of:
—Baptist pastor, influenced by Higher Criticism in theology school
came to disbelieve inherent inaccuracy of Bible, Doubted substitutionary atonement, as not taught by Jesus. went to study in Germany and England
THE UNITED CHURCHES’ TEACHING EMPHASIS CHANGED FROM REPENTANCE FOR SIN TO THE SOCIALIST IDEAL: FIX ALL SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND MAN IMPROVES AUTOMATICALLY. (While they still claim to teach both, it is obvious which has won out)
RAUSCHENBUSH BECAME A FABIAN SOCIALIST IN ENGLAND:
The Fabian Society, Named was after the Roman General Fabius Cuncator, “The Delayer”, who preferred a slow progressive tactic in battle rather than a direct frontal attack, gradually wearing down his opponents. This tactic was adopted by the Fabian Society to further their aim of world dominance
– stressed “both the social-democratic parties, Labour party members and others in Europe and in the New World, and communism in Russia, since there is no difference in their objectives, only in their methods.”
.— They seek to entangle us in a jungle of laws phrased in incomprehensible language, upon which we will not be able to extricate ourselves. Their central crusade is the eradication of God in public life.
FOR MORE DETAILS on FABIANS SEE THE FORUM GENERAL DISCUSSION
Uniting Religions; Dividing the World
We felt exactly as you do, until we read what God said through the Prophet Jeremiah to the Israelites who were following prophets who told them God would never punish their sins by taking them away to Babylon, and completely depriving them of their leadership and perpetual sacrifice of atonement.
Read Jeremiah 27, 28, and 29.
God tells them it was His will that they go there, settle, plant gardens, have children and WAIT for Him to recall them to their promised land, and rebuild the Temple. It’s amazing how it all fits right now, with what we’re seeing, only our Babylon didn’t require us to relocate. God let it come to us in Rome. We need to hold fast to His Commandments, accept what we can do nothing about as our punishment for sin, offer our sufferings for others, and do all we can to spread the True Faith, together, and individually.
Maybe one or more already have done that. All he has to do is say, “No”.
He is the Supreme Pontiff, after all. That leaves them with the alternative of finding a majority who agree with them, to call for a Council, doesn’t it?
So we’re right back to realizing how few in number we appear to be-relatively speaking. Don’t worry, God has a plan. He’s going to let Our Lady show them what genuine feminism can accomplish when it is dedicated to pure love of God and His Church.
We Faithful Catholics need to be the reason the world remains divided. The only way we can be united is in Jesus Christ and His Church, the REAL one we all carry in our hearts, minds, and souls–the One we Love.
(1) @Michael Leon: I quoted the passage from 2 Thessolians 2 previously and reproduce it again here to echo the gravity of the present situation you highlighted:
“And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him:
That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.
And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,
And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you first fruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth:
Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
I read a speculation elsewhere that “he who now holdeth” in the part of this passage that reads “For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way” may refer to the Pope. That is, a faithless generation “that is sent the operation of error, to believe lying” will be cursed with a weak Pope who will be swept aside when the antichrist inaugurates his reign. Your comment about a tipping point having been reached reminded me of this passage. I feel like chicken little sometimes too.
What better illustration of the willingness to believe lying could there be than the explanation offered up by Cardinal Kasper on why he thought the disciplines on second marriages and reception of communion could be changed. He actually used the false ecclesiology of VII to defend the second marriage: “the second marriage has some of the elements of a true marriage . . .” These people apparently do believe their lies.
(2) Mr. V made a series of conclusions in this post about what we do and don’t know about positions taken by this Pope. In other words, the Pope has raised doubts. This reminded me of one of Father Hesse’s videos where he made an analogy to the sacraments in discussing VII.
A similar analogy to the one made by Father Hesse can be applied to the spectacle of Pope Francis. Analogizing the sacramental elements of matter-form-intent to a papal election, the proper “matter” for a true papal candidate is a “faithful male catholic” and the proper intent is, in part, “to elect a defender of the faith”. The fact that Pope Francis engenders so much doubt because of his feckless “defense” of the faith begs the question about whether he was the “proper matter” for a Pope, and whether the Cardinals had the proper “intent” when elevating him.
Of course, all faithful Catholics know that a doubtful sacrament should be avoided. What does that say about the wisdom of the Cardinals who chose to elevate this person of doubtful catholicity to the papacy? Alternatively, what does that say about us who expect a different result? After all, those of doubtful catholicity have been elevated to the Papacy for a long time now, and by their elevation they have been allowed to stack the College of Cardinals with fellow travelers.
Dear Indignus. Thanks for the information about Brian Stiller and the WEA. The connection with the Fabian Society was surprising at first, but then it began to make sense. Did you know that the symbol of the Fabian Society is literally a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
I found some information that will be interesting to you as well as Louie. The WEA pushes a “social gospel”. This is sort of the evangelical version of liberation theology. Come to think of it, the WEA is sort of the evangelical version of the USCCB — a large beaurocratic organization infiltrated and manipulated by liberals/socialists. BTW, infiltration and manipulation are typical tactics of the Fabians.
The WEA put out a document called the Phildelphia Statement — A Statement on Evangelical Social Engagement — in 2007.
It talks about Jesus as Lord and then uses that as a justification for a “social justice” type of agenda. I think Louie would be especially interested in this document because it almost has a Christ the King theme, but then it totally subverts the message and attempts to use this to justify a “church of man” rather than a “church of God”. Can you see now how Bergoglio and WEA have so much in common? Here are some excerpts to give you a flavor.
“The Lordship of Christ provides the fundamental reason for Christian involvement in social, civic and political affairs. Consequently, both evangelism and social action are essential dimensions of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
“Evangelical theology stresses the importance of a personal relationship with God in Jesus Christ and sees the transformation of individuals as an important part of the transformation of the world. However, the notion of a purely privatized faith in which the gospel only affects individual, personal or family life but has no wider implications for society must be rejected as inadequate.”
(3) In an attempt to inject some cheer into this thread I planned on writing a comment that made reference to, and included the lyrics to, the hymn “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence”. Fearful that Indignus might bring to my attention that this hymn is actually a “proddie” hymn, I made sure to look up its history, and that is where the irony begins. In any case, here are the lyrics:
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth
Our full homage to demand.
King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.
Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the powers of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away.
At His feet the six winged seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Lord Most High!
Now for the irony. This hymn is actually one of the oldest, and dates, according to some, to apostolic times. Those crediting such antiquity to the hymn associate it with St James the Less, of all saints! In any case, there is apparently no dispute that the hymn was in use by the late 4th or early 5th century in the Liturgy of St. James.
Where in the liturgy were the words chanted you may ask? Not surprisingly during the preparation of the bread and wine – given the clear reference to the true nature of the Eucharist made mention of in the hymn.
Now for the irony. This hymn was translated by an Anglican minister, and is included in the hymnals of many protestant denominations. In an effort to understand the hymn from a protestant perspective, they focus on the incarnational theme of the hymn, and use it during Christmas time. They apparently ignore the eucharistic theme, which accords with Catholic dogma. They also ignore the fact that the incarnational aspect of the hymn is also related to the eucharistic aspect of the hymn, since Our Lord becomes present in communion.
So back to 2 Thessalonians and the operation of error and believing lies. When the Pope says that there are doctrines that we’ll never agree on with the protestants he is (if he actually said this) lying. The reason that he, and all catholics who speak like him, are lying is because there is no dispute! We have the truth, and they have defected from it. And there is no such thing as “partial unity” either!
correction Brian STILLER ( W.E.O)
Very good observations, and thank you for the addition info. Stiller made a point of mentioning several times on the videos with Canada’s 700 club, how excited they all were to gradually come realize how much God wants BOTH the spiritual AND the material needs of man to be addressed, yet the emphasis was much more on the material, as it seems so often to be with the Pope, that one get’s the feeling they all belong to the same fraternity.
Thank you for the Scriptures AND the “proddie” hymn 🙂
There’s plenty of food for thought in all you said. And although both of these have been discussed in the recent past,- the dulling of the intellect from habitual sin, -and the diabolic disorientation spoken of by Sister Lucia, are likely the reasons so many of what should be the greatest “thinkers” in the Church today, including recent Popes, seem bafflingly taken in by things that so clearly are erroneous to the faithful who aren’t looking for excuses to justify unholy desires or appetites or lifestyles, but simply want to live lives pleasing to God.
Semi-related to the story:
‘Common Core Better for Kids than SSPX’…EWTN:
Can someone who speaks German please translate the following article? It is an interview Thomas Schirrmacher who is the Chair of the Theological Commission of World Evangelical Alliance (WEA). He is one of the evangelicals that met with Bergoglio. (That makes 3 representatives from the WEA — including the head of the organizaion.)
I tried using Google translate but it does a lousy job with German. Schirrmacher talks about what Bergoglio said about “ecumenism” so it would be well worth getting an accurate translation. Here is the Google version of that response.
Private chat before theology, the new path of ecumenism?
The Pope has entrusted to us very much about his theological vision, quite in line with the excellent Apostolic letter of November 2013 ‘Gospel Gaudium “which contains an almost evangelical to be named Bible study on the Gospel and evangelism exception of the final chapter on Mary. We were also theologically well prepared and had with Thomas K. Johnson and Titus Vogt, two experts of the Theological Commission of the WEA in Rome with it. The times in which dialogue and ecumenism only work by not openly deal with theological questions of truth, in my opinion, as a necessary dialogue with other religions, who thinks they have to put their faith into question in advance are just gone.
Rorate Caeli has announced its intention to address the issue of Bergoglio’s meeting with evangelical leaders and his non-desire to convert evangelicals to the Catholic Church.
In this article they remind us of “the sacrifices of the thousands of Catholics martyred by Protestants, or ‘Evangelicals’, in the past 500 years.”
+ + +
I have said this before, but it bears repeating that Bergoglio is spreading the anti-Catholic Black Legend which dwells on the “historical sins” of the Catholic Church while ignoring the persecution of Catholics.
Have we totally forgotten the genocidal acts committed by protestant England against Catholic Ireland? Have we forgotten St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More who were executed by the English simply for holding to the Catholic faith?
Have we totally forgotten the martyr’s blood shed by Islam in its conquest of the Christian world?
Have we forgotten the Catholic martyrs of the French Revolution? And what of the Cristeros in Mexico? And the martyrs under Russian communism?
And what about the Catholic martyrs in Japan, Vietnam, Uganda….?
And what about other persecution like the Kulturkampf in Germany which forced Catholics to flee Germany or else be imprisoned? And the current persecution of the Catholic Church in China?
And of course the protestant “reformation” during which lutheranism was imposed on so many Catholic European countries by their rulers — this was not done through “conversion of the spirit” but through conversion of “might makes right”.
A better translation of the paragraph in question would be as follows:
“The Pope confided in us a great deal regarding his theological perspective, entirely in line with the excellent Apostolic Exhortation of November 2013 “Evangelii Gaudium”, which, except for the final chapter on Mary, contains what could almost be called an evangelical Bible study on the Gospel and evangelization. We were just as theologically well-prepared and had Thomas K. Johnson and Titus Vogt, two experts of the Theological Commission of the WEA, with us in Rome. In my opinion, the days in which dialogue and ecumenism can only work by ignoring questions of theological truth are over – as is a necessary dialogue with other religions which thinks it must first call its own faith into question.”
Schirrmacher is careful to not reveal any details about the meeting. As he says, most of what took place at the meeting is “confidential”. But he makes it clear that Pope Francis “took much more than the allotted time to explain his plans to us”. Whether we Catholics will be made privy to those plans before they are put into action remains to be seen.
But then one would think that it becomes his faith-bound duty to pursue the matter. As we both read in the document “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church”, the faithful have the moral duty to resist a prelate – even a bishop – who preaches heterodoxy. This should apply even more so to bishops and cardinals in relation to a pope, due to the divine commission they have received as pastors to so many souls.
Nonetheless, I’m not holding my breath. I think many prelates would avoid the question because they would fear the possible answer, and what they would be called to do in such a case.
Dear Matthew. Thanks for the fantastic translaion! And also for your additional insight into the interview.
Here is another article originally in German that sheds light on these events. If you have a chance please read it and give us your comments.
FYI. The article reveals that Giovanni Traettino is one of the protestant pastors who prayed over Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina in 2006 in a “ecumenical” gathering of evangelicals and “Catholic charismatics”. (I think we have all seen the pictures and/or video.) Traettino specializes in “ecumenical” relationships between protestant and Catholic charismatics. I wonder how many sheep he has stolen from Christ’s flock in the process. Truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And he is the one that Bergoglio is going to go to apologize to???
@Michael Leon: If you want another “boogie man” story to reinforce your “chicken little” stance (I know this really isn’t a laughing matter, but the only alternative is to cry!) I attended a NO service again last week and the deranged Dominican was back at it again.
Listening carefully to his homily, I initially thought he had decided to back off from being a member of the vanguard ushering in the changes that he suspects are coming from the October Synod. He talked about his experience of family life as a young child. All pretty innocuous stuff but apparently designed to get those listening to lower their guard.
Having disarmed the parishioners, though, he started in again. He recounted how one of his sisters had married a catholic man who turned out to be (according to him) an abusive drunkard. This very sensitive and caring sister had enough of the drunkard after a few years, divorced him and married a protestant.
This apparently created a division within his family, because his older sisters defended the Catholic teaching on marriage and censored their younger sister for her scandalous and adulterous second marriage. Listening to him, I almost thought who cares about Catholic teaching? The supposed new understanding of, and concern for, the whims, no I mean the needs of Catholic women mean we can adjust the teachings to accord with the world, no, I mean reality. Suffering should be avoided at all costs!
I snapped out of my daze long enough to fully grasp what he said next. He likened his older sisters – who rightly admonished the younger sister for her mortally sinful second marriage – to judgmental pharisees! Bam! A cold slap in the face! Realizing that by implication this priest was defaming the martyrs for Catholic marriage I got up, genuflected and left. I refuse to listen any longer to this wannabe junior Kasper.
A young father was outside tending a disruptive child and I explained to him what had just been said. His attitude was so what, and, with beliefs like mine, we will never convert anyone! Apparently, he hadn’t gotten the memo that we are no longer seeking converts! Of course, no one followed me out the Church either! I guess I got an ever so small flavor of what the English Catholics suffered through during the mass defection of their countrymen from the One True Church. It wan’t pleasant!
Oh yes. The parable of the women with the abusive husband. Can you remind me? I can’t seem to remember if that was in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John…. Oh never mind, now I remember…. it was in the “liberation theology” bible in the book on the gospel of feminism!
The same gospel that says there is no heaven, there is no hell and…. there is no God??? Otherwise known as the Marxist manifesto. You see the rich class exploits the poor class, and men exploit women, and whites exploit blacks, and the Church exploits …. well all of the above.
…. and so we need a REVOLUTION! Not because we actually care about any of these “exploited” people, but because that is our ticket to get into power. And then we can make the real revolution — the one we actually care about — which is to overthrow God and His Church and establish the kingship of Satan on earth and force all people in the world to worship satan!!!
Your priest is just doing his little part whether he realizes it or not. (Hopefully he doesn’t realize it, but its hard to believe that he doesn’t have an inkling that what he is preaching is not for the Glory of God. If you really pressed him he would probably admit that he doesn’t really believe in God and divine revelation and the Real Presence.)
+ + +
So I don’t blame you for walking out. There are no easy answers these days for faithful Catholics.
+ + +
BTW, what has feminism done to “liberate” women?
1. Abortion — including sex selective abortion which means women murdered in the womb. The ultimate form of exploitation.
2. Surrogate mothers — Feminists who auto-sterilized by using contraceptives exploit poor women by using them as a “hired womb”.
3. Day care — Women are forced to work and then there babies are taken away from them to be raised by total strangers — usually the staff is low income women who therefore can’t afford to raise their own children.
4. Divorce — how many women have been exploited by feminist rhetoric into abandoning their marriages because they felt they weren’t getting sexual fulfillment or were convinced that being a wife and mother was an inferior vocation to working in a business. As if having a “career” is the ultimate fulfillment in life.
…. this is just a sampling and think of the great harm that has been done to children as a result of this feminist attack on women and the family. And ultimately this destroys society which means more unrest, more exploitation and more revolution. The evil one is the only winner. I don’t suppose you’ve heard any homilies on those topics recently…
You’re only half-way done. Now sit down and write one of your best posts on the subject. Outline what’s wrong with that sermon, what Scriptures contradict it, what papal teachings reflect on those, and all the “feelings” that caused you to have to leave. Then make an appointment to talk to that priest, and ask him if you can read him what you wrote and discuss it with him.
If he says yes, and you manage to plant some seeds of doubt about the modernist teachings, and impress him with your sincerity and concern for souls, you may set him on the road to recovery. Let him know there are people like us in agony over these things, even if he rebukes you. This is the time to turn the other cheek.
If it seems to do no good. Leave it to God and pray for him. If he let’s you come back to talk again, go for it. You are well equipped to handle it, if you keep love in your heart for all those who are suffering, as well as for him.
You’re only half-way done. Now sit down and write one of your best posts on the subject. Outline what’s wrong with that sermon, what Scriptures contradict it, what papal teachings reflect on those, and all the “feelings” that caused you to have to leave. Then make an appointment to talk to that priest, and ask him if you can read him what you wrote and discuss it with him.
If he says yes, and you manage to plant some seeds of doubt about the modernist things he believes, and impress him with your sincerity and concern for souls, you may set him on the road to recovery. Let him know there are people like us in agony over these things, even if he rebukes you. This is the time to turn the other cheek.
You are well equipped to handle it. One success can reach all the people who will ever listen to his homilies or seek his advice, or confess to him. We’ve had that experience, despite all the others that seemed ineffective. It was all worth it.
Sorry for the double entry— sunspots.
How many Shades of Gangenelli are there? How many will we see? We now have fierce neo-Catholic, recovering “Traditionalist” (who admires those who write what he calls “screed”), “old-school liberal” and Obama defender (but, since he accepts all Church teaching, apparently is sickened by the murder of the pre-born up to the moment of birth the administration pedals, as well as gay “marriage”), and, now, sede-in-the-making. I’m sorry, but – it’s really too much.
Sedevacantism is far from the only response to a bad or erroneous pope; if it was the faith would have collapsed long ago (which is not to say this crisis isn’t the worst yet). The Holy Spirit protects the Church by forbidding such a man to bind Catholics to error by changing doctrine. If this were the false church she’d have changed every doctrine under the sun by now but instead not one iota stands molested.
There’s a quote from Fr. Feeney every good Catholic should love.
The post-conciliar popes have revealed themselves to be much more unwittingly participants in the destruction.
Would Paul VI have lamented with tears the “smoke of satan” he saw entering the Church if he was letting it in of his own volition? Would John Paul II have warned of the “silent apostasy”? If these men wanted to destroy the Church they would not have sounded the alarm bells as well.
What makes much more sense is that they are the very prelates with “itching ears” we were warned about, seduced by diabolical disorientation and simply unable to see the logical ends of their own theology and policy.
It’s true that Francis is the worst yet, but does he come off more as a sinister iconoclast or a dim-witted, aging hippie who occasionally takes someone else’s meds by mistake?
Our Lady of Fatima will lead the Church out of this terrible crisis. Our Lady, pray for us.
You may have a point regarding invalid matter. This same argument has been made with respect to the recent papal canonizations.
Of course, by ecclesiastical law the pontiff holds his office regardless, until and unless deposed by the Church, as Bellarmine taught.
Everybody’s favorite article :):
Mr. Cyprian attends Novus Ordo Masses? I need a drink.
Dear Catholic Thinker. The answer regarding Mr. G. is whatever it takes to start an argument — he is simply playing the devil’s advocate. This is the standard modus operandi of a troll. In this way he attempts to hijack the combox and fill it with “noise” so that the conversation becomes confused and diabolically oriented. This detracts from the real meaningful conversation that could help other Catholics to begin to find their way through these dark times. Once again, my advice is “please, don’t feed the trolls.”
There is only one shade of Ganganelli. As I have repeatedly said, I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church including the very ‘liberal’ social justice teachings of Pope Pius XI. I accept DH and UR of V2. I can understand the Post-V2 popes wanting to have conferences, meetings, etc. to see if there is a chance the various non-Catholic groupings will accept the truths of the Catholic faith after proper explanation. What I could not accept is a Pope who would teach there “are so many doctrines we’ll NEVER agree on.” That is a bridge too far for me. Hopefully, the Pope was misquoted.
There has been a study done on the increasing extroversion in society and how introverts can get by: to qualifty, on the one hand, extroverts are, by psychologists, deemed a populace that need other people’s energies/company to refuel; on the other hand, introverts require time alone and comptemplation. At any rate the study looked at Evangelicals and concluded that an introvert simply has no place in such a movement – Evangelicals are in constant need of people to feed off. I think I understand why a vampire like Bergoglio identifies with them so much – perhaps they will convert him – one can dare to dream.
Why I find the study interesting is in terms of Novus Ordo catholicism. One is never allowed to quietly pray or contemplate – not at mass, not after mass; hands up who has ever managed to get half way through the Leonine after low mass prayers at a NO mass? I can’t because there is always someone who thinks my private ‘time’ with God after mass is nonsense and I should be gabbing with them instead. Also interesting is that introvert time or contemplative time, especially for a Catholic necessarily is refueling on the endless source of God.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
We would gladly be persuaded that those since VII have all been duped to varying degrees by Satan and his minions, because it makes it easier to pray sincerely for them, despite the terrible consequences their bad decisions and actions have had on us and our families and so many other souls. It’s a bit hard to be as generous as you seem to be here, because of so many contradictions between their actions and their words, but on the other hand…
Their lives and positions gave them many first- hand experiences with the exceedingly cruel realities of War and Dictatorships, perhaps making philosophies which promise global peace, harder for them to resist emotionally, especially if they became convinced they can be modified by the Faith to bring them in line with God’s will.
That would explain their frustration and tendency to persecute those who stand in their way -based on what they would view as “outdated” ways of thinking from their less-enlightened predecessors’ teachings.
But even if there is not one drop of ill will towards God in any of them, what we are now faced with is so devastatingly harmful to souls, it must be continually denounced in every way possible until it disappears.
Catholics cannot be a socialist dream, focused more on man helping man in this world in a way that leads to control of the many by the few, who for whatever reasons, see themselves as better qualified to make decisions for individuals than we ourselves are and with values that are incompatible with the teachings of Christ and the will of God Revealed throughout the ages.
An increase in apparent freedom from Divine Law is not a good.
Neither is a philosophy that demands we don’t try to convert anyone to the Faith,.or that we ..ignore sin and Dogma and doctrine as much as possible, tell people to go with what they “feel” is good and avoid what they “feel” is evil….and hand out the Church’s Sacraments to the unrepentant with as little mention of “requirements and dispositions” as possible, even if it condemns them to Hell for eternity because they continue to live in mortal sin and add sacrilege to the list,
___Souls will not find Revealed Truth on their own, in a society so blinded by sin that murdering babies is as commonplace as teeth-cleaning, and so many wars are in progress at once that most people live in a constant state of denial and distraction just to cope day by day.
Having read many of your prior postings we are certain you are not advocating silence. But some folks think that is the only option if someone is declared innocent of malice, while continuing to do evil, so we thought we’d clarify that the opposite is more important than ever, while these conditions last.
Do you think we’ll see more of that resistance now that Pope Francis is coming out so publicly with statements that don’t leave any wiggle-room about his intentions?
Amen. One of our greatest joys in finding the TLM, was walking into a Church where signs were posted on the doors asking for silence while people pray, and the priest wasn’t standing with his back to the tabernacle, chatting casually with those in the front pews, before or after Mass. We couldn’t even find that much silence in most Eucharistic Adoration Chapels in our Diocese.
The Novus Ordo really is the bridge to nowhere. A bridge AWAY from the Rock to sand-city.
He has secretly converted and wants to bring the rest of the Church with him.
I think that depends very much on how the laity react. An orthodox bishop or cardinal is stuck in a real moral dilemma, and the last thing he wants to do is openly criticize a reigning pope. But history has shown that he will if he knows he has the faithful Catholics – the ones possessing the authentic sensus fidei – behind him. The reluctance of traditional Catholics to voice their opinion – in the old days, it was our place to follow our leaders unquestioningly – often works against them in the current setting. All it takes is a vocal 10% to change the opinion of the majority. The homo-fascists have proven that. With ca. 250 bishops and cardinals open to tradition, we would have that 10%. But we have yet to find the means for organizing that energy.
I’ve tried to respond to your comment three different times now, but each time the system refuses to post my comment. I don’t know what’s going on.
This is a very good exchange. Especially in light of the the readings for Mass this past Sunday: 1 Peter 3:8-15 and Matthew 5:20-24. I see no reason to stop praying for the Pope, for even if one were convinced that he was actively trying to destroy the Church, one would still be bound to pray for his conversion.
He hasn’t converted, He is a spiritually adulterous spouse and abusive father. He spiritually fornicates with every false sect and religion in the world. He spiritually abuses his true spouse with his continual vituperation and castigation. He spiritually abuses both his grown children (the FFI) and his little children (the too-pious for his likes alter boy). With his fascination for spiritual adultery, is it any wonder he wants to “bless” marital adultery?
I haven’t told the story about how someone endowed a high mass to celebrate the recent canonizations at the church where I attend the TLM. Talk about rubbing your nose in it! They had the KOC with swords even! I had just read an article that documented JPII knew about the abuse crisis almost from the beginning of his pontificate, so when the priest began praising these pontiffs I got up and walked out on that mass too!
Dear Matthew. Most likely you have multiple weblinks in your post. That will automatically cause rejection. I don’t know exactly what the limit of links is, but I stick with just one per comment to be on the safe side. (To get around this you can either say Google “this” or add one or more replies with links. That works.)
+ + +
Thanks! for taking the time and trouble to reply. I have checked back a few times. Not that you should feel obligated because of that. 🙂
+ + +
Anyway, I’ll check back later today and I’m looking forward to your reply. Viele Dank!
Another point of view, from the “inside”:
“Francis knows exactly how power is spelled,” says Bernd Hagenkord, a Jesuit who is in charge of German programming for Vatican Radio. “He’s a communicator in the league with Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. They say he’s being unclear, but we know exactly what he means.”
But as far as I am concerned, “as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University” the bishop of Rome ain’t.
I read through the original, and translate the first two paragraphs below:
(Rome) Pope Francis wants to pay a private visit to an Evangelical friend. Giovanni Traettino lives in Caserta, roughly 200 kilometers south of Rome just behind Neapels, where he is an Evangelical pastor. The two first met at an ecumenical event in Buenos Aires in 2006.
In doing so, Pope Francis continues his advances towards charismatic Protestants. In the context of his ecumenical efforts, the Catholic Pontiff has devoted the greater portion of his attention to this group. With the official Protestant communities, such as the Lutherans, the Calvinist and the Anglicans, Pope Francis maintains friendly, institutional contact. Very different is his contact with the large charismatic Pentacostal movement – which today, in its various manifestations, has more adherents than the historical communities of the Reformation. In 2011, the Pew Forum estimated the portion of Pentacostals among Christians at 12.5%. The lion’s share live in sub-Saharan Africa, America and Asia. It is in these Christian movements – and in these parts of the world – that the Catholic Pontiff apparently sees the most promising chances for unity.
I think that speaks volumes, and explains the rest of the article quite well. In the old days, we used to hope for a reunion between Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. It seemed to many that these two, despite their differences, were destined to eventually find their way back together. Yes, we have substantial theological differences which are not to be swept aside lightly, but, given the fact that both sides took their theology seriously, the eventual reunion would have been all the more powerful.
It would appear that the post-Vatican II Church has decided to ‘change horses’: now they are putting everything into joining forces with the charismatic Pentacostal movement. Whereas union with the Orthodox would mean years of heavy theological debate, union with these folks is about as easy as: “You love Jesus? ME TOO!”
Which reminds me: Chad Arneson – a former Pentacostal himself – over at Faithful Answers is putting together a series of exposé articles on the Charismatic Movement, and the evil which lurks just beneath the surface. Part 1 is already online. I’d post the link, but it seems my comment keeps getting rejected because of it. (?)
“I can understand the Post-V2 popes wanting to have conferences, meetings, etc. to see if there is a chance the various non-Catholic groupings will accept the truths of the Catholic faith after proper explanation.”
With all due respect, but are you living on planet earth?
Surely you realise that it was never the intention of the post-conciliar pontiffs to convert heretics and infidels into the bosom of the Church, as the post-conciliar theology implicitly holds that all religions are valid means of salvation, or in the words of arch-heretic (actually appointed cardinal by “St” JP II) Hans Urs von Balthasar, that “we have a reasonable hope that there are no souls in hell”?
What you are saying about trying to see if there is a “chance” heretics will be converted after a “proper explanation” are Pius XII’s directives on the ecumenical movement, not the praxis of the post-conciliar popes.
This seems a good prayer for right now:
Excerpt from DIVINI REDEMPTORIS encyclical by Pope Pius XI, 1937:
“To hasten the advent of that “peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ” so ardently desired by all, We entrust the vast campaign of the Church against world Communism under the standard of St. Joseph, Her mighty Protector.”
“He belongs to the working-class, and he bore the burdens of poverty for himself and the Holy Family, whose tender and vigilant head he was. To him was entrusted the Divine Child when Herod loosed his assassins against Him. In a life of faithful performance of everyday duties, he left an example for all those who must gain their bread by the toil of their hands. He won for himself the title of “The Just,” serving thus as a living model of that Christian justice which should reign in social life.”
Matthew (above) That is the reason Louie and others like him who are unafraid to speak out, yet exercise due cautions and respect for the offices of those whose words and actions they denounce this publicly, are so appreciated by folks like us. We’ve felt relatively alone in our struggles all these years, yet now we find ourselves among many like-minded Catholics who have bee doing the same, still seeking holiness and Truth, still trusting God and praying, and doing all we can whenever and wherever we see opportunities.
and to Rich,
Your bad experiences with the FSSP appear to be similar to what we’ve all seen with the mainstream Post VII Church. In your opinion, is the entire movement corrupt, and/or ( without requesting details you feel should be kept private), could your experience be limited to those with whom you spoke, and not be widespread?
Hey Catholic Thinker,
No drinking till after the baby is safely delivered.
In what way you consider he IS keeping it a secret, when with each successive interview, he seems to be declaring it more and more loudly? That’s what has everybody so fired up right now.
We’re just curious, what in your opinion would make any Catholic,, but especially one in the hierarchy, a “convert”, rather than just a sympathizer or adulterer?
p.s. of course, “convert” implies he started out Catholic, which his own accounts of his teen years and inclinations towards Communist philosophy, don’t exactly confirm.
Sadly we have to second the points you make here.
We remember being shocked many decades ago, by reports in “The Wanderer” of people knocking on the Vatican’ door, asking to convert, and being told to go back and stay in their(separated) communities in central Europe, because the Vatican thought they could do more good if they stayed as they were, and didn’t want any interference with their Secretary of State’s political efforts in Russia–we assume they were worried about news headlines accusing them of proselytizing..
Can’t back that up with facts as it was so long ago and before computers were in every home, but it stuck in our memories and was confirmed more and more by later reports. Just ask folks like salvemur and deMaria who post here.
Hello Matthew. Wow! Yes that correlates with the other information I have seen. There is an effort to join Catholics and evangelicals. This is NOT a “match made in heaven”. And this is not a movement that would normally spring up naturally on its own. My gut feeling is that there is a lot of money behind this. And my guess would be that the ones supplying the money see this as an opportunity to weaken the Catholc Church and at the same time push the One World Religion (which is really a NO World Religion) agenda.
Giovanni Traettino is definitely a player in this agenda. He is heavily involved in forging connections between “charismatic Catholics” and charismatic evangelicals. (I don’t think all “evangelicals” are heavily into the heavy-duty “charismatic” stuff. These words — “evangelical” and “charismatic” — have no clear definitions anyway.) Anyway, it would be interesting to find out who is funding Traettino because that would give an indication of who is behind this agenda financially and ideologically.
As I was saying, there is nothing natural about this alliance. The leaders like Kenneth Copeland who are suddenly pushing this have a lot to lose. I am absolutely certain that this sort of talk of forging bonds between the Catholic Church and evangelicals does not play well at the grass roots. And yet I watched a video where Copeland is pushing this — and Copeland’s talk was given after the meeting with Bergoglio. See video here:
So call me a conspiracy nut, but I think Copeland is motivated by $$$’s and someone must be paying him big time to jump on this bandwagon. In case you don’t know, many or most evangelicals don’t even think that Catholics are Christians. And they routinely refer to the pope as the anti-Christ — hey they finally got a pope in Bergoglo that fits the description and now they’re changing their tune. And along with that they refer to the Catholic Church as “the whore of Babylon” in Revelation. So to change those very deep rooted beliefs requires quite a PR/sales job. If you watch Copeland in action you can see that he is all PR and sales. He could be selling soap or Christ — he just happens to find it more lucrative to sell a soapy version of Christ, so that’s what he does. My guess is that if you dangled enough dollars in front of his nose he would just as willingly and with just as much conviction of a “true believer” sell whatever.
As for the WEA (World Evangelical Association) they appear to be one of these totally artificial organizations with no grassroots. They are the equivalent of the World Council of Churches (WCC) but for evangelicals. I know the WCC gets lots of foundation money (Rockefeller, Ford, etc.) and I assume that WEA probably does as well. That money gets repaid by pushing the agenda of the foundations which is the One/NO World Religion.
And that brings us to Bergoglio’s role in all of this. Hmmmmm.
If we understand your reaction correctly (without a dictionary of slang) 🙂
We found ourselves more disturbed by the above photo, than by all the other less formal ones of the Popes with their arms around Moslem and Jewish Rabbi’s and Hindu’s etc.
It’s a “gut” reaction, but those are usually caused when our brains go into overload from a flood of converging facts, and we try not to hit the panic button while hearing the voice of that annoying robot from “Lost in Space”– repeating “DANGER, WILL ROGERS…DANGER!…”
Dear Michael Leon,
Re: Traettino, here is his philosophy in his own words from the network–Apostolic Fellowship International:
“In the New Testament there is a clear indication and understanding of the collegial nature of the apostolic ministry, as a service for the unity and “catholicity” of the Church. The Koinonia of the apostles is necessary to the connection, the coordination and the organic unity of the local, national and trans-continental fellowships over which they preside (episcopè). This allows the recognition of individual ministry but always in bonds of unity and truth with the collective episcope, the sphere and the responsibility of the collegial apostolic government. The apostolic nature of the Church is the responsibility of the apostles in a mutual fellowship of love and truth. The koinonia and the unity of the apostles is necessary as an authoritative “diakonia” to the universal Church so that it can grow in love and truth (from the truth in love to the truth in unity) in our individual churches, and in the wider Church, with a view to obtaining the fullness already expressed in Christ, and which remains God’s unquestionable goal for the Church.
Giovanni Traettino. Brasile 2002
We’re sure you will notice the attempted usurpation of the role of the Catholic Church—“with a view to OBTAINING THE FULLNESS…WHICH REMAINS GOD’S unquestionable GOAL for the Church.
In other words, there exists as of yet, no ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, except in potential–IF We all unite with all those who profess belief in Jesus–no matter how rife with error they all are.
THIS is what makes the Pope’s active participation with them –and in secret meetings, of monumental concern–especially in the light of his own assertions that he has no intention of converting any of them.
@Indignus: “He” refers to Pope Francis. According to Robert Siscoe, until Pope Francis publicly declares his intention to leave the Church, I am supposed to treat him as the Pontiff.
Assuming he is the Pontiff, and he is standing in for Our Lord as the spouse of the Bride of Christ, how is he behaving? He is consorting with those not incorporated in the Church – the Bride of Christ – and who have no intention of entering the Church. He is not their spiritual leader, and they have indicated no intention to accept him as their spiritual leader. His interactions with them are illicit as a result and can be likened to adultery.
At the same time, how is he treating faithful members of the Church for which he is responsible? He has set out to destroy one of the view bright spots in the Church – the FFI – and he never misses an opportunity to castigate those who exhibit any sign of traditional Catholic piety – e.g. the little alter boy, those who presented him with rosary bouquets, etc. That is why I likened him to an abusive husband and father.
“view” should be “few”
Thank you for that clarification. Points taken as written-agreed.
The WEA’s forerunner, the Evangelical Alliance, was founded in 1846 at – get this – Freemason Hall in London, the headquarters of the masonic United Grand Lodge of England. This morphed into the World Evangelical Fellowship in 1951, to reach its present form as the World Evangelical Alliance in 2001. These guys have ‘Freemason’ written all over them in big, fat, flashing neon letters. Nasty stuff when you start digging….
Perhaps another instance of a Masonic “Secret in Plain Sight” that most observers are oblivious to.
Quickly, for now – I “advocate” right about as much “silence” as Archbishop Lefebvre did. 😉
You’re probably correct that he’s essentially a troll and hence should be ignored. While it’s true that trolls that aren’t fed eventually slink away, I generally have a hard time leaving naked falsehood unchallenged. I will give this some thought.
“It’s a bit hard to be as generous as you seem to be here…”
It sounds like my words were pretty seriously misconstrued (perhaps my fault). Generous? While “the Church does not judge internals”, and neither do I, by no means did I mean to suggest that the pontiffs are inculpable.
I believe I referenced “itching ears” here or elsewhere – in truth, this is a rather damning condemnation (no pun intended). If a pope, who is the very Vicar of Christ on earth – the representative of God Himself who has been given all juridical power – and who has taken an oath to uphold the Faith of the Apostles, is taken in by novelties – what does that say?
I’ll say no more on that score. My point was only that I don’t believe the popes were *directly* willing the destruction of the Church (as anti-popes likely would be). How much culpability they had and have, I am unable to say, but my gut feeling is that it’s somewhere around “a good deal”.
Heck yes, Michael.
(It’s certainly good for the soul to pray for the good of those we dislike anyway.)
You may have a point to some extent, but the problem is some of these bishops – possibly a majority and possibly the vast majority – offer the Tridentine Mass only to offer “another flavor” and for those (silly, old) souls with some sentimental attachment to it. At that place – with no understanding of the objective problems with the Novus Ordo/the causes of the crisis – one is really no closer to discovering Tradition.
However, of course, saying & praying the Tridentine Mass can only do good.
One might think EWTN is attempting to parody itself, but actually this isn’t surprising at all. To neo-Catholics, traditionalists – and especially the Society – are not only the greatest evil, but pretty much the only evil.
It seems he was in a constant state of “denial” about the pedo-priests – willful denial, it would seem. He sure was regarding Marciel.
FYI, Gangenelli has also argued vehemently that the Church changes moral doctrine (that is, infallible teaching), but simply doesn’t admit it. See the long discussion a few posts ago, regarding the American bishops. At this point there is reason to suspect he is not sincere, as several have been suggesting of late. If not that, he is certainly confused (and I mean that with no ill will).
no offense to will Rogers, that should have been
DANGER WILL ROBINSON—. 🙂
Dear Matthew. Agreed. Freemason and Fabian Socialists. They are all about the UN agenda and a “sustainable environment” which is code for population control and one world government. The funny thing is that the people they supposedly represent are not into those things at all. Personally, I think they want to talk to the Vatican officials so they can find out how they pulled off the greatest coup of all time which was Vatican II. Of course they are at a disadvantage because they can’t just throw out some documents and expect all the evangelicals to follow them out of obedience. Oh how the Catholic hierarchy took advantage of the faithful that were entrusted to them by God. But that is another priestly abuse scandal…. God have mercy on us all.