On October 23, 2014, Catholic Review – the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Baltimore – published a thoroughly scandalous article undermining Church teaching on homosexuality that even included a sacrilegious image you won’t believe.
Watch the video below, and then join me in urging Archbishop William E. Lori to defend the Holy Catholic Faith.
Catholic Review: “St. Matthew broaches topic of coming out for parents, gay Catholics”
What else could you expect when the Vicar of Christ has proclaimed a “Who am I to judge?” and “Live and let live” mentality?
Anyone with a “CATHOLIC” heart, should be moved to tears. Have mercy on us, Dear Lord!
It’s heartbreaking how many souls these evil prelates are sending into mortal sin. As exemplified by the errant priest in the confessional in Eric Hess’s moving story. http://www.clmagazine.org/article/index/id/OTI2Mw/
Dear Mr Verrechio, sometimes – as in the last couple of times that I came onto your site from Yahoo search engine – your site is “forbidden”, and one has to continue to the site “at your own risk”. Why do you think this might be?
Poor, poor Louie. We could see your sadness in this video. You are surely suffering to live in such a corrupt diocese. On the other hand at least you have something to fight. Here in Canada, under our socialist, totalitarian regime all is silent. We have peace and good government – our advertised motto. But in reality we live under a very thick blanket which quashes all dissent. Our Human Rights Commissions rule with an iron fist and have silenced us as throughly as in the old Soviet. Our budget is balanced, we have none of the monetary panic that strikes many countries, all seems to be well. Right.
—
Our poor Catholic Church is under the same thick blanket. All is well even thought 25% of Catholics attend Mass, 3% in Quebec, but don’t worry the Bishops’ Conference is busy on our behalf preparing yet another committee report.
—
We have no abortion law whatsoever meaning abortion, paid for by my tax dollar can be had from conception onward to the moment before birth. In fact we may be the only country in the world with NO abortion law at all.
—
My bishop is silent on all issues. He’s a nice man, personable, friendly, clean and sober to all appearances. He says nothing about anything. His newspaper is filled with happy people shaking hands, or receiving an award, or just smiling into the camera because it’s Tuesday. Our Bishop’s column is pure garbage, and incomprehensible garbage at that.
—
Oh that we had something to fight!! Good for you, Louie that you are making your voice heard. God bless you.
It’s thriving in the Archdiocese of Boston also. Cardinal O’Malley (one of the Pope’s confidants) says nothing….
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/boston-priest-puts-glbtq-rainbow-flag-on-catholic-chapel/
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/boston-priest-promotes-petition-for-lgbtq-banner-over-white-house/
Hmmm, can’t find the referenced rainbow cross image so maybe they took it down? Glad it’s gone if that’s the case, but then there’s the rest of the article. Rarely do we lose our faith in giant gulps but by tiny nibbles. This LGBT thing is so ridiculous on its face, it feels like death by Scottish Fold kittens.
One for the “wrong way, Francis” category.
_
500 Years of Protestantism: The Failure of Protestant Emotionalism
_
Link here: http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2014/10/failure-of-emotionalism/
_
Summarizing:
“In absence of the sacred liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Mass, all the Protestant has is a church service to go to once a week. In absence of the perpetual Passover meal that YHWH commanded, Protestantism has attempted to fill that void with music, entertaining preaching, dancing, and visual displays that are all geared towards appealing to base senses and emotions. In the absence of presenting the visible savior as the Holy Eucharist, Protestantism has filled that space with a visible preacher, on whose personality and ability befalls the success or failure of the church. In absence of the Holy Eucharist, the preacher’s sermon has become the summit of the church service. In absence of ritual that informs us when to stand, kneel, sing, pray, and respond in decency and in order as a united community, Protestants have resorted to individuals deciding for themselves when to do these things. In absence of the spiritual climax and promise of salvation that reception of the Holy Eucharist offers, some Protestants have privatized the Holy Spirit’s gift of speaking and tongues and have taught that those who don’t receive it, aren’t saved. Others have made a doctrine out of promising wealth and material things for all who have enough faith. Others ‘handle’ poisonous snakes, jump and dance around, and/or faint after being ‘slayed in the spirit’.”
_
Sounds like a certain bishop of a major Italian city that I know of. 😉
_
PS I don’t think Francis handling snakes is that far fetched….. 😉
Yes, to preaching and other ‘talk’ becoming the be-all and end-all of worship. As we know, Traditional Masses have no sermon (I refuse to use that hippy word ‘homily’) at all unless there is a major feast, or some particularly relevant saint on the day.
—
And the Sunday sermon is a real teaching moment. No jokes! No ‘what I did on my vacation,’ no mush.
—
Spread all through the NO Mass is talk, talk, talk. More protestantism!
And speaking of “pulling the sects into the church of Francis” category, this…
_
Pope: in a Europe where there is “thirst for God,” Catholics and Old Catholics should bear credible witness to the Gospel
_
Link here: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope:-in-a-Europe-where-there-is-thirst-for-God,-Catholics-and-Old-Catholics-should-bear-credible-witness-to-the-Gospel-32572.html
_
Francis says:
“The challenge for Catholics and Old Catholics, then, is to persevere in substantive theological dialogue and to walk together, to pray together and to work together in a deeper spirit of conversion towards all that Christ intends for his Church.”
_
Note: Francis is basically saying: “Hey, why can’t we all get along?”
_
But who are these “Old Catholics” one may ask? Sound traditional on the surface. Can Francis be reaching out to tradition?
_
Just in case you don’t know who the “Old Catholic” nutters are, link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Utrecht_%28Old_Catholic%29
_
Quote from WP:
“The Old Catholic churches reject the doctrine of papal infallibility; thus they reject the dogmatic status of the teachings promulgated in the Roman Catholic Church by such means, namely the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. While Old Catholics affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they do not emphasize transubstantiation as the sole dogmatic explanation for this presence. Old Catholics generally refrain from using the filioque and deum de deo[citation needed] clauses in the Nicene Creed and also reject a dogmatic understanding of Purgatory; however, they generally do recognize a purification by Christ’s grace after death and include prayers for the dead in their liturgy and devotions. They maintain some basic Roman Catholic practices such as baptism by infusion (pouring of water) or the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Additionally, they have many aspects in common with the Orthodox and Anglican churches and Eastern-rite Catholicism, such as optional clerical celibacy.
.
The Old Catholic churches tend to maintain a more liberal theological anthropology than the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, many churches of the union ordain women to the priesthood. Angela Berlis was the first woman priest in the union, ordained in 1996. In addition, the churches of the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland offer the blessing of same-sex unions. The individual’s primacy of conscience in ethical matters is stressed. Private confession is not mandatory, though it is practiced, and decisions regarding the use of artificial contraception are individual and discretionary.”
_
Oh my! “Old” does not equal “tradition”.
_
But in any case, If they would only get over the papal infallibility thingy, they would be a shoe in at the church of Francis.
_
Wonder how long Francis is going to insist on the doctrine of “papal infallibility” ? Somehow, that is one dogma that Francis don’t seem to want to touch. 🙂
Francis losing it.
_
Pope Francis: Fighting for the Poor Doesn’t Make Me Communist, It Makes Me Catholic
_
Link: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-fighting-for-the-poor-doesnt-make-me-communist-it-makes-me-cat#ixzz3Hj6fNGVG
_
Francis:
“Instead it requires thinking in communal terms, and includes fighting structural causes of poverty such as inequality, unemployment, lack of land and housing, and the denial of social and labor rights, he said. It also requires facing the destructive effects of the “empire of money” such as forced displacement, painful migration, human trafficking, drugs, war and violence.”
_
John 18:33-37
“So Pilate went back into the Praetorium and called Jesus to him and asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus replied, ‘Do you ask this of your own accord, or have others said it to you about me?’ Pilate answered, ‘Am I a Jew? It is your own people and the chief priests who have handed you over to me: what have you done?’ Jesus replied, ‘Mine is not a kingdom of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews. As it is, my kingdom does not belong here.’ Pilate said, ‘So, then you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘It is you who say that I am a king. I was born for this, I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.’
_
Gospel reading from the Feast of Christ the King.
_
If only the modernists would not have moved the Feast of Christ the King from the last Sunday in October into late November……
Maybe flagged by the JIDF or LGBT orgs or even N.O. fanatics to Yahoo.
I’ve never encountered such problem with Bing or Google yet.
I’ve noticed “Old Catholics” are used as an example to bash both Traditionalism proper, and Sedevacantism.
Of course they are polar opposites, insofar as O.C.s are simply just another group of heretics whos views are completely at odds with Tradition.
You see, I’ve noticed that doctrinally the Church had a centripetus momentum culminating in the Vatican I council (or maybe a bit later).
In this context O.C.s reacted and split off, not because they refused novelties, but a more rigid and traditional interpretation of religion itself.(the very opposite of what Ts. and SVs try to do ergo similar reaction, but for opposite ends).
After that, much like for contemporary National States, and centrifugal forces prevailed, encouraged by Rome itself (with Paul VI, who gave/allowed unprecendented freedom in liturgy and formally recognised the College of Bishops, suppressed the Index of prohibited books, adopted newspeak over ecclesial Language), among a general discipinary laxity.
On the surface, it was a self-imposed choice, nevertheless there would be no need at all for “Old-Catholic”-like reactions from their fellers today, as their convictions are partly shared among N.O.dites and tolerated de facto by the “Church” itself.
Pedophilia in the church of Francis.
____
Great Flemish Idea: Put a Convicted Boy Molester Back in a Parish Filled with Young Men!
____
Link:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/great-flemish-idea-put-boy-molester.html
____
New Catholic writes:
“Does he deserve a second chance? Well, most in his situation around the world have been deservedly defrocked, so his privileged position is another sign of injustice, as is the fact that Vangheluwe’s protector, Cardinal Danneels, was a guest of honor of His Holiness at the 2014 Synod of Bishops. It’s as if Belgian pedophiles have some kind of hold (undue influence?…why?…) in the Vatican which prevents them from being punished with the same ecclesiastical justice applied in other nations – and their cardinalatial protector is even held in high Vatican honor. What does a priest or bishop in Belgium need to do to be removed from parish life and contact with minors?”
__
Pedophile?
_
But as long as he doesn’t offer the Immemorial Mass of All Ages, he is no threat to the church of Francis. 😉
_
PS New Catholic adds this:
” At the very least, he could find his second chance in a myriad of monasteries where he can spend the rest of his life in secluded prayer and yet not deprived of Holy Mass.
.
Not in charge of a parish teeming with prey, that is, boys and young men!”
__
Parish teaming with young men in N.O. land? Where…. 😉
Aramaticus,
I don’t understand what you are implying, could you please be more clear about it?
Thank you.
@Barbara
Your assessment of the situation in Canada in very true. I’m living in Quebec, and there’s so much suffering. Personally, I paid a high price by choosing going to a traditional Mass in Québec City and by doing some apostolate on the web, but most importantly, by trying to raise my children in the tradition of the Church. I have two beautiful children that I cannot see more than once every two weeks (and they now live 5 hours auto drive away). My wife was convinced by social workers that I’m dangerous for the children. She now wants divorce. Please pray for her, so that she’ll be saved … The only thing that make me still want to live is looking at Jesus on the Cross …
Dear Bert:
Probably to highlight that no matter how many times he references “catholic social teaching”, Francis is a policy wonk at heart. Francis’s kingdom is definitely “of this world”.
_
And a secondary point is that Francis lacks what can be called “message discipline”. He appears to just say stuff without thinking through what he is saying. By not having a clear idea of what point he is trying to make, he talks himself into logical cul -de sacs. And to get himself out of these logical dead ends, we get these rhetorical gems like “…I’m not a communist, I’m a catholic” or the “god of surprises”.
_
Hope this helps.
Well, bazou, what can I say? Except I’m very sorry for you and your children, and, by extension, your poor wife. I hope you attend Mass at the Fraternity apostolate in Quebec City. I’ve seen pictures of their church and it looks beautiful.
—
My daughter-in-law is virulently anti-Catholic, even though she is Catholic. She’s living in sin with my husband’s son. One of her ‘bitches’ about her first husband was “he went to Confession every week!!!!” Must have been a very bad husband and father, no?
—
We have had bad bishops here in Canada, probably for the past 80 years. So I guess you and I have to make a team of TWO Canadians here (that we know of) and pray for them. We have had Catholic politicians also from the Prime Minister, to Members of Parliament, to mayors since the 60s. It seems when they cave in to the world, and salute The Prince Of This World, it’s sadder than if they were just run-of-the mill heretics or pagans.
—
I pray for you too, that your marriage can be saved.
Maybe all these things — the Baltimore article, the Synod, the election of Bergoglio — are just to advance the continued coverup of the sodomites’ abuse of boys. A restoration of the Church would mean cleaning out the sodomites from top to bottom with the ferocity of a Paul IV.
–
A top of investigation also could be: “Vatican II and the Sodomite Abuse of Boys.”
Dear Louie and all,
We think this is the logical outcome of the ongoing clergy sex-abuse scandal, which has not been eliminated, just because it was made public.
___
Too many Bishops who “retired early” or resigned in disgrace, were replaced by their own kind or worse, while many others weren’t touched. The signs they are still here in large numbers are all over the place -in lawsuits still being “settled outside of court” with money donated by the faithful to support the “Church”–leading to diocesan Church-closings and bankruptcies in never-before seen numbers, as well as all the new “Save-the Church”-diocesan Campaigns for “development” and “Stewardship programs” emphasizing “Time”,”Talent, and “Treasure” (requesting tithing at least 10% of Gross-income with most of that going to the NO./Stewardship- parish).
___
While it must not be forgotten that any innocent clergy still suffer greatly whenever these facts are pointed out (and should be supported and prayed for by us);
–nevertheless, what is happening from the pulpits, even in parishes without these specially designed programs, is ONGOING SEXUAL SIN BEING TOLERATED or IGNORED or TAUGHT TO BE TOLERATED AND IGNORNED in varying degrees, BY OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHURCH AND THEIR APPOINTEES. – as if the sin doesn’t have to be denounced as evil and rejected by being given up and Confessed; BEFORE the rest of us are expected welcome homosexuals into the hearts of our communities, and as if they pose no threat to the innocent and impressionable among us, or are a further grave threat to their own salvation.
___
WHY does anyone but their confessor and therapist need to KNOW that someone has a deviant sexual orienation? Would we promote special group-signs for schizophrenics and neurotics to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade together?
– If they’re living according to Church teachings, the only reason for mentioning their sexual orientation is to get the public to accept the LIE that the sin they attached to it, is not sin, but something “good” they were “intended by nature” to desire and do. Whereas the only valid reason for mentioning it today, would be to help other deviants overcome that thinking, to conform their lives to God’s will. And that only needs to be done in private groups, with no “rainbow” banners and other sensational advertisements that imply support for public sinners and scandalize the rest of society, -much more, the rest of a Catholic parish.
___
We should all resent the ongoing perversion of the rainbow symbol which was a sign God gave to the world on behalf of the Faithful who survived the flood, to remind us of His promised not to repeat that particular chastisement, which He sent to put an end to the ongoing societal take-over of sodomites, among many other types of sinners.
___
So for sodomites to use it to represent themselves, bespeaks a very deliberate and arrogant flaunting of their sins, before a God they proclaim either approves of those perverse acts , or is now powerless to punish them– which only begs for the next great chastisement that St. Peter reminds us will be one of a fire that melts all the elements–and which he pointed out so we would remember in order to live more saintly lives.
___
This case in Baltimore, which has obviosly been going on for years, points out
another Bishop who is either promoting or condoning these errors, or deliberately looking the other way in total negligence of his sworn duties. Either he believes in and follows Church teaching on what sin and its consequences are, or he doesn’t. But the proverbial buck, stops with him.
___
HE represents the Apostles to his flock. HE is harming the “gays” who are not being vigourously rescued from falsehood, and HE is harming the faithful he is allowing to be exposed to their ongoing sinful lives and to the “Francis-like” perversion of the meaning of true mercy and charity.
– And ultimately, HE will answer to God for this inaction some day.
– WE need to remind him of all of that in true charity.
Dear S.Armaticus,
It’s worth saying whether is helps the preceding conversation or not.
It’s one for the copy and paste file. Thanks again. 🙂
Dear Franklll,
We were working on the comment we entered immediately after yours, obviously without having seen what you wrote. You and Lynda have an enviable talent for succinctness.. We’d proclaim the old “great minds think alike” thing, but we often don’t feel qualified on this end… 🙂
God Bless
Dear S.Armaticus,
We also like the fact that the author brings out this vital point about the Precious Liturgy they’ve replaced:
“For their part, the [Catholic] people meet the Christ who has come to them through the vehicle of the liturgy to offer Him due worship and thanksgiving, and to obtain blessings, sanctification, and graces”
-It strikes us that all of the other missing elements he goes on to mention, flow directly from the “original” sin of their founders’ rebellion against this veritable fountain of Graces. And their deliberately not being passionately led away from that error, is a criminal act on the part of anyone who knows better, and especially one with assigned to teach, govern and sanctify in the name and place of Christ Himself..
For any readers in need of a dictionary to understand what Berto is saying above (though you can glean it from context) 🙂
___
Centripetal force: Moving or directed toward a center or axis.
___
Centrifugal force: The apparent force, equal and opposite to the centripetal force, drawing a rotating body away from the center of rotation, caused by the inertia of the body.
Dear bazou and Barbara,
Just a reminder that one benefit of belonging to the Church Militant is we aren’t limited by national borders, or even earthly laws of physics, for that matter.
You have our daily prayers, and all others who will join us, including the entire heavenly court which Our Lady says God promises to be at the services of those who pray the Rosary, which we do without fail, daily.
Dear bazou, if you haven’t yet heard of or read up on Our Lady of Fatima, please check into it, and say the Rosary daily, even if you have to sneak in 5 Hail Mary’s at every stop light on the way to and from work to get it done. It will focus you on the truths of the Faith in the midst of your trials. And we’ll be praying for you to bear the pain of whatever happens between now and Our Lady’s triumph–which we have God’s word, is coming.
–We all have terror stories to tell about being rejected for living our Faith. When we meet in heaven some day, we’re sure they will be part of why we feel such a kinship for one another. You have people like us as family, and we know that doesn’t fix your deepest longings–for your own to join us in the unity that only comes from accepting truth. But let be a salve and a good, comforting bandage to help stop your bleeding heart right now. At least we can do that much for each other.
God Bless
p.s. bad wording, let it stop the bleeding, not the heart… 🙂
Even if those flags are flame-resistant, nothing’s gonna keep them from burning when the angel with the fiery sword is given the go-ahead. ;-(
Also, don’t forget to pray for and to, the poor suffering souls in purgatory. They benefit from our prayers and the offering up of our sufferings, because they can no longer pray for themselves while they are being purified for heaven. But they can and do pray for us, according to the dogma of the Church, as well as testimonies through the ages, from mystics who have been graced with “visitations” from some of them–both in petition and in gratitude for being relieved by the help of others.
God Bless us all
Our poor dear Barbara,
I so believe your pain. You are right on about Canada, the so called “kinder gentler nation”. If people only knew. I would much rather be living in the United States than Canada. At least we can still put up a fight here but unfortunately it may not be for long if we fail to persevere.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
This made me laugh in a good way. Keep up the fight!
While we’re on the topic of negligent/manipulative Bishops:
We’ve seen this spinning machine in action before:
___
“Catholics around the world need to know that the Vatican communications machine is still doing its best….
— ( what Chris Ferrara calls the positively evil midterm Relatio, which the Synod completely rejected), appears in English, Italian, Portuguese, French and Spanish as do ten other documents related to the Synod.
— while the only one that matters de jure – the final and official relatio which did not even propose – much less approve – Communion for divorced-and remarrieds or “welcome” for homosexuals and their “gifts”,
IS POSTED ONLY IN ITALIAN”.
— “it is even worse than this. All of the problematical documents pertaining to the preparation and interim Relatio of the Synod on the Vatican website page linked to above have titles that are active hyperlinks, so that you can click on the title and immediately go to the document.
— But the title of the Synod’s final Relatio—the only document that was supposed to represent the Synod’s official outcome—is merely in dead type that cannot be clicked.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1213-synod-news-vatican-still-manipulating-results-of-the-synod
===========
Yes we’re being sarcastic in asking,
Now why on earth would the Vatican want to make the “evil” non-approved interim Relatio so accessible, while making “better, barely-approved final one almost impossible for most people in the world to read or research?
What was it Solomon said about there being “nothing new under the sun?”
I’m so glad no one has used ‘pedophilia’ here. We know the problem is sexual pervasion of the ‘same-sex-attraction’ type so we must always be clear about that. It’s called homosexuality – a term which really has no meaning. We should call them ‘people who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction.’ How come we use words they want us to use instead of good old fashioned ones?
—
True pedophilia is rare. People with that sickness usually go after little boys, AND little girls. They are truly sick, and the prognosis is not good for recovery.
—
So-called homosexuals are attracted to other men, but very often youngish males – 12 to 16 as well. These people tell us this over and over but we don’t hear them. It’s one of the few truths they do tell. Ever hear of the man-boy love association? They constantly attempt to get the age of sexual consent lowered to 14 for boys.
—
As for the late release of the Relatio in English – let’s face it ‘the vatican’ is gone. None of the people there can be trusted from now on. Liars, perverts, modernists, marxists and socialists.
Barbara,
I had written a lenghty response but the site went down whilst I was posting..
Basically, “ephebophilia” would be a more correct term to indicate the overwhelming majority of criminals in this whole scandal.
Pedophilia was used by the media because it is still a very grave perceived crime and taboo in the west… for now.
Pedophilia is systematically covered up by the media and authorities though, because it is rampant in the elite circles, and among muslims (see BBC-Westminster-Rotherham cases in the UK just recently).
The vatican II Church was ferociously attacked because it still isn’t up to date with the world, ergo still not self-mutilated into submissive cattle inside the “acceptable tolerant modern” pen.
Still too fundamentalist, as our more liberal N.O. brethren reminds us so often.
And many low level worker bees still didn’t get the memo and think of it as what once was, hence the ever so present hatred.
Dear Barbara,
Let’s not write them ALL off. The Devil would love that. Think ‘remnant”.
Many of the ones in charge seem “goners” but we know from the Synod there are still a vocal minority around. It only takes one to make a Pope.
Lynda, For some reason today we got “Page Not Found”, so here it is at another site: http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/coming-out-of-sodom/
I’ve got this as one of my “Favorites”, so I come right in. 😉
Louie — on target, but with one phrase which caused me to stop, namely, your request that we pray that Archbishop Lori be given the grace to do what it right. Isn’t is very possible that he is already given that grace every day by virtue of his episcopacy, but that he rejects it every time? A frightening thought.
You’re right Berto, I couldn’t think of the word. And of course no one in the media is going to say that ‘homosexuals’ would do such a thing! It must be those nasty ‘pesos’
—-
Yes, you are right too, Indignus. The minority is so SILENT!!! And this is going to all be pushed back to the Bishops Conferences anyway. And the silent minority will really be under pressure then.
—-
And look, in my own country we’ve got a head of our Conference who is a real weasel.
—-
As to Archbishop Lori – if he has not responded to Louie and others by now he won’t. The wall of silence stays up.
Pesos!!! Darned spell-check! I meant pedos.
This bishop is hell-bound if he does not repent and take up his cross.
Dear Bazou, your suffering offered to Our Lord is doing great spiritual good, saving souls. I’m very sorry for how you have been treated so unjustly and cruelly. I pray that the evil behind this attack on your marriage and family will be overcome, and in the meantime you will have the graces necessary to endure and experience consolation and growth in holiness. Your children will know that you love them. But being deprived of your children and they of you is egregious injustice, and unlawful. I pray you will get the legal help you need too. God bless you. Your sister in Christ, Lynda
The pain of the abandoned remnant as so poignantly presented herein is a result of our love for God. We offer all of our pain and suffering to Our Lord God in reparation and for the graces necessary to save endangered souls. Purify us O Lord, and use us for Thy Glory. Blessed Michael, pray for us. St John the Baptist, pray for us.
Dear Christina64,
When we first read that In 1917 at Fatima, Our Lady said “Many souls go to hell, because they have no one to pray for them.”, we were shocked and wondered if it might be a mistranslation, thinking Jesus and Mary would be praying for everyone, without being asked, wouldn’t they? So how could there be “no one” to pray for those souls?
___
A while later we read about a Bernadine sister, a mystic from the early 1900’s who was told by the Blessed Virgin that the devil had been let loose throughout the world, causing vast devastation, and the time had come to pray to her as Queen of Angels, and to ask of her the assistance of the heavenly legions to fight against those deadly foes of God and men. The Sister said, “But my good Mother, you are so kind, could you not send them without our asking?” And Our Lady answere, “No, because prayer is one of the conditions required by God Himself, for obtaining favors.”
___
Considering that, if someone isn’t praying anymore, and has merited damnation by even one unrepented Mortal sin, and has no one to intercede on their behalf, and as you just pointed out, has rejected the Graces God gives every soul for salvation, according to their station in life and though the Sacraments, then the natural end for them would be eternal damnation in hell, which we know God desires for no one.
___
So what Our Lady was telling us, is that we have the power to help saves who will otherwise, without our charity, go to hell. And we can daily choose to use our time to pray and make sacrifices, asking for her intercession, in order to do obtain extra Graces through the Sacrifice of Her Divine Son.
Bottom line –even though Grace not a material thing, when you think about what it can do for a soul on its way to hell– more– is better.
___
Since we mentioned it above, here’s the Prayer our Lady gave the mystic (from the book by Rev. R. Geral Culleton: The Prphet and our Times):
–“August Queen of Heaven! Sovereign Mistress of Angels! Thou Who from the beginning has received from God the power and mission to crush the head of Satan: we humbly beseech thee to send thy Holy legions, that under thy command, and by thy power, they may pursue the evil spirits, encounter them on every side: resist their bold attacks, and drive them hence into the abyss of eternal woe.”
Indignus Famulus,
I tried searching for the origin of the quote from Sister Lucia you mentioned, but all I was able to find on the web is the quote itself on various sites, with no additional details. Also Medjugorje with the description of Purgatory by Vika keeps popping up (it is bizarre, have you read it?).
Is it from Lucia’s memoirs? Is it possible it could have been part of the fabricated material from later on?
I find it very odd, particularly for the implications..
it is also the first time I’ve heard something similar.. do you know of any doctrinal reference?
If someone with a Mortal Sin can be “prayed into Salvation” how does that work exactly? He would be in Hell when that happens, not Purgatory. Or is the Soul kept “in stasis” because God knows already he will be saved due to future prayers from whomever?
Thank you in advance.
The very concept of Remnant implies there is AT LEAST ONE remaining non heretical, validly ordained, Bishop (or higher) in existence in the world at all times, so that apostolic succession may still happen foverer.
OT: Just some news reports:
–
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/santa-marta-37236/
–
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2014/10/making-it-up-as-he-goes-along.htm
–
This person subverts a crucial teaching of Our Lord (the first link) and then contradicts Catholic dogma on the unity of the Church (the second link), all in one day! Anyone who defends him now is of bad will.
–
Note those “catholics” in the audience clapping at his “unity in diversity” HERESY in the youtube clip in the second link. Do you, dear reader, consider yourself in union with either the speaker or his admirers in the audience?
Sorry about the second link, here it is:
–
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2014/10/making-it-up-as-he-goes-along.html
–
Cyprian,
I believe the second link is incorrect, you may have accidentally removed an “l” in “html”.
Here’s the correct link I believe:
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.it/2014/10/making-it-up-as-he-goes-along.html
Dear Berto,
We’re very glad you posted these questions, so we can clear up any misunderstanding for you and anyone else who may have them.
1. We never thought (and didn’t mean to imply) that anyone’s prayers can save someone who has already died and gone to hell. It’s dogma that with even one un-repented mortal sin at the moment of death and personal judgment, which occurs then;, the soul immediately enters hell and remains there forever. Nothing changes that.
2. What we were referring to, and according to everything we’ve read- so was Our Lady, were the extra Graces that are given to a living soul before death, which it is still free to accept or reject, but which may help the person to repent before death, and confess their sin- making them eligible for purgatory and/or heaven.
3.Once a person is dead, we can only hope they are in heaven or purgatory, and our prayers for them only affect them if they are in the latter.
____
We too, have heard the statement from many sources over the years, but first read it in a book put out many years ago by something called the “Mother of Christ Crusade” which no longer exists, we are told. It was old when we received it as a gift, and had a nihil obstat and impri mater–which used to mean what it says in the olden days. We’ll check around to see what else we can find.
___
It’s funny, but since we’ve heard it so often from Fr. Gruner’s publications, we never thought to question where the words came from, so we can’t answer that one for you.
Hope this helps.
p.s. regarding Medjugorje,
We crossed it off our list way back when it began and we read it’s first messages. They seemed to be contrary to Church teachings to us, encouraging people to disregard differences in religious beliefs and unite for peace without becoming converted. We’ve read a few things on it since, that convinced us we were right, so we don’t bother with it any more.
___
We also had a friend who went there a few times and turned into a real fanatic about it, who later became very ill from too much fasting-almost died. That didn’t make us fans, either..
___
We took a look at a few of the references to Purgatory, and weren’t impressed. They’re vague, mimicking Church teachings but adding a lot of details no one could prove or disprove. Like we said, we’re not fans.
Regarding link 1, for a true understanding of Our Lord’s teaching regarding charity, commandments and obedience consider 2 John 1 reproduced here:
–
“The ancient to the lady Elect, and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth, For the sake of the truth which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever. Grace be with you, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus the Son of the Father; in truth and charity.
–
I was exceeding glad, that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as writing a new commandment to thee, but that which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is charity, that we walk according to his commandments. For this is the commandment, that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in the same:
–
For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
–
There is no false dichotomy between charity, Our Lord’s commandments and obedience as in that supposed homily – the evangelist provides the true teaching: “And this is charity, that we walk according to his commandments”.
Dear Cyprian,
We looked at the first link, which is really nothing new in gobbeldy-gook land, and we figure the second must be as bad or worse, or you wouldn’t have asked the question you have asked..
But since you asked that, we’re wondering if you have a problem with the concept of folks being in union with the Church and with Christ and his teachings, and considering themselves also in union with whatever truth and goodness also come from those whose positions put them in authority over them; while being out of union with anything false and bad? Rather than considering union to mean acceptance of both good and bad.
In other words, we remain in union with Truth and Goodness, and out of union with falsehood and badness. We renounce what is bad.
It’s not like he’s ordered anyone to sign a paper saying we believe he’s right about everything he says. It’s harmful to those who swallow it all, so it keeps us busy renouncing falsehoods, but it doesn’t force us to sin. Do you really think our publicly denouncing him as Pope would affect people any more or less than our denouncing what he says that is false, and agreeing with what he says that is good?
I’m planning on going to Medjugorje for a week or so next spring/early summer.
I need to investigate all the supernatural phenomena taking place there it seems almost daily.
Those include the now world famous “sun miracles” (in mockery of Fatima) and surprisingly Transmutation (!!!) particularly of rosaries into precious metals it seems.
It is also true Medjugorje followers seem to have extreme reactions, both impromptu during the events (wild, unruly shouting/crying) and once back home.
They become obsessed, as I have seen first hand.
However it remains to be seen if their reaction is due to the malevolent nature or simply awe towards what they believe is the presence of the Divine, almost at their grasp. I imagine it must be psychologically fatiguing.
Medjugorije has a HUGE following in Europe and is in fact brining hundreds of thousand of people either back to the “faith” or ex novo converts.
Too bad it’s leading them to the V:II false faith and not Catholicism..
Update on the Vatican posting regarding the Synod Evening October 31st:
“Relatio ante disceptationem” by the Relator General, H. Em. Card. Péter Erdő (6 October 2014)
[English, French, Italian, Spanish]
◦”Relatio post disceptationem” by the Relator General, H.Em. Card. Péter Erdő, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest (13 October 2014)
[English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish]
◦Message of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
[English, French, Italian, Spanish]
◦”Relatio Synodi” of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops: “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” (5-19 October 2014)
[English, Italian]
We’re not certain of these were the documents reported by the Remnant earlier, but if so, it looks like they’ve now added at least the English.
Anyone with more info about this, please confirm?
Update on the Vatican posting regarding the Synod Evening October 31st:
“Relatio ante disceptationem” by the Relator General, H. Em. Card. Péter Erdő (6 October 2014)
[English, French, Italian, Spanish]
___
◦”Relatio post disceptationem” by the Relator General, H.Em. Card. Péter Erdő, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest (13 October 2014)
[English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish]
___
◦Message of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
[English, French, Italian, Spanish]
____
◦”Relatio Synodi” of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops: “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” (5-19 October 2014)
[English, Italian]
___
We’re not certain of these were the documents reported by the Remnant earlier, but if so, it looks like they’ve [the Vatican]now added at least the English.
Anyone with more info about this, please confirm? Thanks 🙂
sorry the above is so repetitive, we didn’t edit properly.
Your response doesn’t strike me as an authentically Catholic response. Since these issues have been dealt with very well by, e.g., doctors of the Church and Popes, I will merely reproduce what one of these august persons had to say on the issue:
–
“The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. ‘There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’ (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
–
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”
–
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum 9
–
Regarding Church unity another blogger has a good post on what St. Cyprian had to say about Church unity:
–
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2014/10/garments-as-symbols-of-unity.html-
–
No, IF, the Church isn’t a patchwork quilt.
Let’s try the unam sanctum link again:
–
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2014/10/garments-as-symbols-of-unity.html
By link 1 I meant:
–
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/santa-marta-37236/
–
Further, regarding the question I asked – whether we should consider ourselves in union with those who would say such things or would applaud those who say such things – was not a rhetorical question. The passage from 2 John I reproduced below indicates that determining that someone is preaching a false gospel to you should cause an action on your part as a believer:
–
“He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
Cyprian,
may I ask, were these very two latest speeches by Francis that triggered your reaction or was it something else?
Had it been brewing for some time now?
Yes, I’ve known many “innocent clergy” who have suffered during the scandals. Without them, the Church would be so much worse off. Their horrible suffering will rebuild the Church after the Bergoglio troubles have ended in God’s good time.
My concern is with the other faithful. I fear for them because of their indifference. The issues at stake are so fundamental, indifference simply isn’t an option. Personally, I did enough research on the current papal claimant at the beginning of his pontificate to convince me that he has committed public acts that were objectively incompatible with the faith. He has only gotten worse.
This isn’t a question of me rejecting someone because once in a great while he errs about a subtle topic – i.e., he isn’t impeccable. No, this person daily spews novelty and error.
Dear Cyprian,
Sorry to hear you don’t think our responses sound authentically Catholic, but we obviously have differing ideas about what that means.
For what it’s worth, we agree with the Church teachings you posted, but think you misapply them to the laity, in the case of a Pope.
FOR THE RECORD: This over at Rorate Caeli
_
For the Record: 1. SSPX and the Bishop of Albano, Italy
2. SSPX’s Fellay: Interview on the Synod and Paul VI beatification
_
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/for-record-sspx-and-bishop-of-albano.html#more
_
SSPX, Italian District:
” It is very odd that Bishop Semeraro should intervene in this way when he has made himself the champion of ecumenism in his diocese. In 2009 he granted the Church of San Francesco in Genzano, which was built with the labors and sacrifices of our ancestors for Catholic worship, to schismatics and heretics. On January 28 of this year he organized an ecumenical vigil in the cathedral to pray with persons who are certainly not “in communion with the Catholic Church”, such as an Evangelical Lutheran pastor and an Orthodox bishop.
.
In the month of November alone, three [ecumenical] meetings are scheduled in the diocese, and the bishop will preside at one of them, thus supporting religions that deny truths of the Faith that have been defined by the Church and spreading the false doctrine of indifferentism, which says that every religion is helpful for salvation. He does not seem to care that this openly contradicts the teaching of the perennial Magisterium of the Church, in particular of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Mortalium animos.”
.
“The Society of St. Pius X, following the example of its founder, will continue to transmit in its entirety the deposit of the Catholic Faith and morals, openly taking sides against all the errors that try to distort it, without fear of threats or of unjust canonical sanctions, because neither Bishop Semeraro nor any other member of the ecclesiastical hierarchy will ever be able to change this deposit. As St. Peter said, “It is better to obey God rather than men.”
_
Mundabor calls Francis “The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History” or TMAHICH” for short. And the shoe fits… 😉
HE’S BAAAAAAAACK!
_
Cardinal Burke b***h-slaps Francis: Round 2
_
“Cardinal says church under Pope Francis is a ‘rudderless ship’”
_
Link: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/31/cardinal-catholic-church-pope-francis-ship-without-rudder/
_
“VATICAN CITY (RNS) American Cardinal Raymond Burke, the feisty former archbishop of St. Louis who has emerged as the face of the opposition to Pope Francis’ reformist agenda, likened the Roman Catholic Church to “a ship without a rudder” in a fresh attack on the pope’s leadership.
.
In an interview with the Spanish Catholic weekly Vida Nueva, published Thursday (Oct. 30), Burke insisted he was not speaking out against the pope personally but raising concern about his leadership.
.
“Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the church is like a ship without a rudder,” Burke said.
.
“Now, it is more important than ever to examine our faith, have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith.”
_
Notice the phrase “Many have expressed their concerns to me.”
_
High Noon is approaching. !
_
And Cd. Burke IS the sheriff!
_
PS Mr. V and Mundabor, right again. 😉
Francis uses the word Justice. Gets himself tied up in a rhetorical knot. Pulls out a new “deus ex machina” from his bag of tricks.
_
The “god of surprises’ is followed up by ……..The doctrine of: “Redemptionem Proximitas” (Redemption by “closeness’).
_
“Pope at Mass: Love and justice are more important than attachment to the laws.”
_
Note: I think he is taking a swipe at both Benedict (due to his last foray into ecumenism thicket) and cd. Burke (Head of Rota).
_
Link here: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/31/pope_love_and_justice_count_more_than_attachment_to_laws/1109859
_
Francis speaks:
“This way of living attached to the laws, distanced them from love and from justice. They followed the laws and they neglected justice. They followed the laws and they neglected love. They were the models. And for these people Jesus had only one word (to describe them): hypocrites. On one hand, you travel across the world looking for proselytes: you’re looking for them. And then? You close the door. Closed-minded men, men who are so attached to the laws, to the letter of the law that they were always closing the doorway to hope, love and salvation… Men who only knew how to close (doors).”
_
Catch the word “hypocrite”. Bit rich coming from Francis.
_
Back to the story.
Speaking of traveling the world looking for proselytes, how many has “open door” Francis attracted after an 18 month “orgy of indifferentism”. How many sects….nah.. make that individuals has Francis brought back to the church by “meeting them”?
_
Zilch, Nada, Goose Eggs.
_
Yet the “all about the law” Benedict was able to bring an entire sect out of the Anglican heresy (Ordinariate) and back into the church. Objectively speaking, sounds like a guy who was a “door opener’ rather than a “door closer” in Francisspeak.
_
Oh, but wait, we aren’t suppose to proselytize them. We are just supposed to go out and meet them. Take them out for a latte, maybe. It’s not like we are living in the time of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, for heaven sakes. Don’t eve want to “open doors” since that would allow sinners to leave their present “station in live”, and goes against another earlier defined Francis doctrine of “strength in diversity’. But I digress…..
_
Which brings us to Francis’s doctrine of “redemption by closeness”.
.
“Jesus draws close to us: his closeness is the real proof that we are proceeding along the true path. That’s because it’s the path which God has chosen to save us: through his closeness. He draws close to us and was made man. His flesh, the flesh of God is the sign; God’s flesh is the sign of true justice. God was made man like one of us and we must make ourselves like the others, like the needy, like those who need our help.”
_
Which leave one wondering how to objectively assess how Francis knows that Jesus is close to him?
_
Complete and utter gibberish!
_
And “rudderless” to boot!
On an aside:
For those who have not seen my post about “Deus Ex Machina”, link to definition here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
.
Definition:
Deus ex machina (Latin: [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na]: /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/;[1] plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has “painted himself into a corner” and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or as a comedic device.
.
A deus ex machina is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story’s internal logic (although it is sometimes deliberately used to do this) and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending.[3]
.
Sometimes, the unlikeliness of the deus ex machina plot device is employed deliberately. For example, comic effect is created in a scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Brian, who lives in Judea in 33AD, is saved from a high fall by a passing alien space ship. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSY4fEEg4j0)
And since we are on the subject, the “new springtime” isn’t all it was cracked up to be!
____
Approximately 50 New York parishes to close, merge
_
Link:http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23086
_
Quote:
“Citing shifting demographics and a decline in the number of priests, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in an archdiocesan newspaper column that 14% of the Archdiocese of New York’s 368 parishes will soon “undergo a purgatory, with decisions to merge them with their welcoming neighbors.”
_
Winning!
_
In the Charlie Sheen sense of that term.
Dear S.Armaticus,
He’s still firing ove2r the bough, but now he’s replaced the bullets with missiles.
(one day of lessons from Louie and Mundabor needed desperately?)
Here are the quotes:
___
“IT’S IMPORTANT
TO HAVE A HEALTHY SPIRITUAL LEADER”
AND GIVE powerful WITNESS TO THE FAITH”
___.
“I HAVE all the RESPECT FOR THE PETRINE MINISTRY”
“I do not want to SEEM LIKE– I AM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE POPE”
____
“I would like to be A MASTER OF THE FAITH, with all my weaknesses,
“TELLING A TRUTH THAT MANY currently PERCEIVE.”
___
“THEY ARE feeling a bit seaSICK
BECAUSE they feel THE church’s SHIP HAS LOST ITS WAY” .
================
And here’s what we think they mean–what do you think?
================
–We have a sick spiritual leader who is witnessing to heresy instead of the Faith.
–I have too much respect for what Jesus wished the Papacy to be for the sake of his Church, to stand silently by
–And despite this being the last thing on earth I’d ever want to have to do
–I wish to imitate My Lord and Master, so despite all my weaknesses
–I’m telling the sad truth that many of the Faithful already well understand
–They are deathly ill at having a Pope who has lost his way and is taking the ship of the Church off course.
======================
Dear Indignus:
I share your view.
_
I would also add that by looking at the wider picture, what I think cd. Burke is doing is quite smart. He is setting himself out as the ‘stalking horse’, as the anti-Francis. He will take the criticism, while allowing others to stay in their foxholes and work behind the scenes. If he is successful, going into the next conclave, the revolutionaries will not know who they can count on. And then it’s only a question of taking over the voting “process”. Personally, my hat’s off to cd. Burke. A true son of the Church if you ask me.
.
Furthermore, the telling statement was when he says that “Many have expressed their concerns to me.” This is letting not only Bergoglio, but also the sane folks in the Vatican and beyond (like in the Polish bishop’s conference and wider JP II crowd) know that there are many more.
.
Now, I do not have a deep knowledge of canon law, but it looks like he is staking out what could be called a “blocking position”, and in a very public way, that will not allow Francis to “sell” his confusion as anything resembling church teaching. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I found cd Burke’s comments on the EG quite interesting when he said that “he is still trying to figure out what it is”. Now, I think cd Burke is doing this so that there can be no doubt that Francis is “not teaching with the bishops”. Therefore, whatever “teaching” Francis puts out, it can be walked back since the bishops were quite optically divided at best. Not very ‘magisterial’ now is it?
_
Summa summarum, cd Burke’s approach is actually a much more intelligent approach then what Bergoglio did to Benedict with respect to the Regensburg speech or the Aglican Ordinariate comments to the Aglican bishop in Buenos Aires. Basically, Bergoglio was crude. Burke is being smart.
_
Personally, my hat’s off to cd. Burke. A true son of the Church if you ask me.
_
We need to keep cd. Burke in our prayers.
_
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis
@IF: Just as a matter of disputation, until you advance Church authority for your position – whatever that may be because your latest statement only set forth a conclusion (I’m wrong) and it didn’t provide a statement of what you think the actual truth is – I assume you’re just talking out of your hat.
–
As an example of your disregarding the implication of clear teaching, the passage from 2 John states “if any man”. It doesn’t say “if any man except the pope”. So the Evangelist believed this to repeat: ” If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
–
St. Paul echoes the same sentiment in Ephesians:
–
“I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
–
For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
–
Now, I have already set forth the authority in prior disputes that I rely on for believing that the laity have a role to play in rejecting heresy, but I will repeat it here. If anyone believes the statements reproduced above are solely the province of the hierarchy – the rejection of error and false teachers – that is NOT the teaching of the Church:
–
“For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: ‘All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium’ (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: ‘When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).”
–
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
–
So Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine believed that the rejection of heresy in the history of the Church has come about partly because heretics have been condemned “by the judgment of the people themselves.”
So as I said before – your apparent position that the laity have no role to play in the rejection of heresy and heretics is not an authentically Catholic position in the weight of all this authority.
Cyprian,
you’re missing a key factor here:
we are not talking of a Pope who has fallen into heresy.
He was never validly elected to begin with, so no need to make such distinctions.
Have you read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio? It deals specifically with the issue, and many more you and Indignus have brought up.
@Berto: I apologize if the implication of my statement wasn’t clear to you. When I said I did research on the current papal claimant at the beginning of his pontificate and learned that he had committed public acts that were inconsistent with the faith, the acts I referred to occurred BEFORE his elevation. Sadly, I am well aware that his public acts occurring before his elevation implicate Pope Paul IV’s Bull Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio. See my comments in this prior blog post about the Bull:
–
https://akacatholic.com/fr-longeneckers-conservative-condescension/#comments
–
For the Record: Cardinal Pell.
_
For the Record: Cardinal Pell Homily to Traditional Pilgrims (Full Text)
– Pastoral Practice can only be changed by “Consensus”| “One of the more unusual Popes”
_
Link here:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/for-record-cardinal-pell-homily-to.html
_
Two key points:
1)” Over 2,000 years these theological foundations have been developed and changed. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) set out to complete the work of the First Vatican Council (1870), by recognizing that as Peter was one of the twelve apostles, so the Pope is assisted by the other bishops throughout the world, forming the College of Bishops.
.
Note: Novel reasoning behind VII. Francis never imagined “collegiality” would turn out like this. Cd. Pell and the law of unintended consequences hang Francis out to dry. 🙂
.
2) “We all have an important task during the next twelve months i.e. to explain and build a consensus out of the present divisions. We will be counter productive if we have anger or hate in our hearts, if we lapse into sterile polemics against a surprisingly small number of Catholic opponents.”
.
Note: “Surprisingly SMALL number of opponents”. And that is after Francis stacking the deck.
_
A good tag team partner for Cardinal Burke, and in the most key of positions: Vatican finances.
_
Let the trench warefare begin. 😉
Asking the questions that need to be asked, and how will this play out.
_
“We are not facing a heretical Pope”…(Ed:.but something far worse).
_
Link here: http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/10/we-are-not-facing-heretical-pope.html
_
Dr. Shaw:
“The worst-case scenario we are facing in the wake of the Synod, supposing things go pear-shaped after next October, is not a Pope announcing in an authoritative document ‘We hereby declare, pronounce and define that a valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved leaving the parties free to re-marry, that marriages may be contracted by persons of the same sex, and that sex outside marriage is not gravel sinful.’ It is not going to happen, and I can say that on both natural and supernatural grounds.
+
“I’m not being overly optimistic in presenting this scenario. In my view it is far more difficult to deal with than open heresy. It is a long, grinding campaign of inuendo, appeals to authority, silencing awkward questions and those who ask them, and steadily feeding poison to the Faithful. It is going to take a lot more courage, intelligence, and stamina to deal with this than it would to ‘go into schism’, whatever that means.”
_
I fully agree with the analysis.
_
Looks like trench warfare for the next couple of generations.
_
But with the forces of Tradition on the rise throughout the Church, the Barque of St. Peter will weather this storm. 😉
Cyprian,
probably my bad, as I honestly haven’t read your and Indignus’ comments carefully.
I have glimpsed over your discussion with A Catholic Thinker and James’ about Francis and SV in general, as it went as it always goes.
But do they not realise that by endorsing Siscoe’s and Salza’s ideas they have put themselves into a corner?
Since they are forced to reduce manifest heresy and automatic excommunication sine ulla declaratione into formal heresy depending on a declaration from the Church(in turn, impossible for a Pontiff, just to cover all their bases.. twofold, formally and practically as you can imagine) they, as I tried to highlight many times, with no success whatsoever, will be unable to break communion with Francis or Francis 2.0 or Francis 10.0 (who knows where the bottom lies, so to speak) no matter what they’ll say, proclaim (even “dogmatically”) or do?
Public world-vision satanic masses, denial of papal infallibility, sodomy as a sin, immaculate Conception, the Son, the Holy Ghost,, you name it.
Do these people understand that a true Pope is the visible sign of unity in the Church? To understand what that means, read this nice summary provided by a Bishop:
–
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2507
–
What does it say about the validity of a “Pope’s” claim to the chair when he effectively reduces his role to that of a partisan hack in a political dispute about worldly concerns? That in so doing he not only sows the seeds of division within the Church among his contemporaries, but also divides himself (and those who follow him) from his predecessors who persevered in the faith? How can Pope Francis be a visible sign of unity when he causes so much division among the faithful and daily rejects dogmas of the faith in his public pronouncements?
While Dr.Shaw is probably right in predicting how things will go down, some details confuse me.
“The supernatural grounds are, of course, the indefectability of the Church.”
True of course, however the author errs into a priori excluding the possibility that those responsible for such an event could not be actually part of “the Church”.
So it is meaningless unless coupled with other, numerous and vast assumptions.
” It is conceivable that a Pope could have a thought at odds with doctrine, and even give voice to that thought. In fact, it has happened more than once over the very long history of the Papacy. But it will never be imposed on Catholics as requiring their belief by a properly formulated magisterial act. The Holy Ghost will prevent that. This is something Catholics must believe.”
Again, it is true indeed. However by refusing a priori to contemplate the possibility of a faux authority, he would be forced to either:
a)reject papal infallibility
or, since this would be unthinkable:
b)declare everything coming out of the Synod/encyclicals/whatever as orthodox, to avoid a)
If that was to objectively happen (imposed on Catholics as requiring their belief by a properly formulated magisterial act).
You can see here that such kind of reasoning is very dangerous.
“The natural grounds are two-fold. First, everyone knows it would be suicide for the Church simply to say ‘sorry everyone it seems we’ve been wrong all along!’; not only suicide, in fact, but self-defeating, because how can you attempt to make authoritative any new teaching when you’ve just said that previous claims to authority were a load of nonsense? Secondly, and perhaps connectedly, the liberal modus operandi does not make use of properly formulated magisterial acts. ”
I agree about the liberal modus operandi insofar as it tries to avoid not only magisterial acts (Paul VI masquerading V:II as “pastoral”) but also using direct, clear and unambiguous language.
However are we so sure “they” do not feel so powerful or in a hurry nowdays as to try that card? It would drive people mad and discredit the “Church” beyond any possibility for remedy in several human lifetimes, but isn’t that one of “their” goals perhaps?
Also, he seems to ignora most “Catholics” are either unaware or uninterested in the doctrine of immutability of doctrine itself, in fact the liberals outright deny it and cry for open doctrinal change.
“I’m glad the conservatives are taking seriously the threat to the Church posed by the latest liberal push, in favour of giving Communion to public sinners, of ‘recognising the value’ of immoral ways of life, and so on. But I fear that their excessive focus on the Papacy is distorting their identification of how, exactly, the problem is going to manifest itself. We don’t need to talk about the complicated possibilities involving heretical Popes, schism, and ‘what happens then.’ What might happen in the future is what has happened over and over again since the Second Vatican Council. Let me spell it out. etc. etc. etc.”
Yes, sure, that is probably how it is going to play out, as it has been extremely successfull so far, but why such a certainty? We can’t be sure.
The “God of surprises” is unpredictable after all…
“In my view it is far more difficult to deal with than open heresy. ”
So correct me if I’m wrong, but Dr.Shaw seems to imply an “ex cathedra” or otherwise “authoritative” pronouncement from Francis would constitute “open heresy”.
Is that correct?
Missed the ending:
So if that is the case, the question of “heretical Popes, schism, and ‘what happens then.’ ” seem to me very relevant indeed, unless we want to adopt such as view (as Dr. Shaw seems to suggest) that “it won’t happen, so no need to even consider the possibilities”.
Dear Cyprian,
As we mentioned earlier, we’ve looked at many of the long long arguments that have taken place on Louie’s blog between sede’s and the SSPX and others, your own included, and decided there are too many counter-arguments citing the exact same quotes of Saints and Fathers and documents, for us to get that involved in it, personally. We haven’t neglected the ideas, we still mull them over. But we’ve decided to stick with the N.O. Church, attending it’s Masses when there is no indult TLM available, and participating in a few parishes where we are welcomed and listened to when we object to things. Our hearts are with the TLM, and everyone we know is aware of our reasons and passion for it.
–We are not hypocritical in our condemnations of the Pope’s wrongdoing and beliefs as presented on the net and in the media. Were he to knock on our door, he would be in for a private meeting he’d not soon forget. Like John Vennari, we would not allow him near our family to teach. And he would not be invited to social gatherings or wished God speed in his endeavors.–all following St John’s instructions. Various Saints held divergent ideas of what to do with heretics, and we side with those who reject socializing but still attempt to re-convert them with vigor–usually leads to them rejecting us.
–We never said the laity have no role, you have just defined it differently and cited certain things which you have decided are reason enough to think as you do. We regularly denounce anyone’s errors, including the Popes. We encourage you to go right on researching and denouncing–everyone whom you believe goes against Church teaching–including us. We don’t mind, honestly. We just get our fill of it all, and back off periodically to thing and pray and study some more, probably more slowly than most others. And in the meantime, we stick to our convictions. So far your arguments have been refuted by others to our satisfaction, and that hasn’t changed. But we respect your searching for truth. Sincerely.
@IF: What arguments of mine have been refuted? I admit that I am in no position to remove the current papal claimant from office. I also admit that I am not the judge of anyone’s immortal soul. The only position I adhere to is that if, through the exercise of my reason acting in good faith I recognize that a superior (e.g., the Pope) does not hold the faith, I am under no obligation to obey him. You yourself state that you would not allow the current Pope to teach any children you are responsible for – so is there any meaningful distinction between our positions? Do you really have the courage of your convictions, or are you demanding a sign from the Almighty before you can make up your mind? You really want a guarantee don’t you?
Dear Cyprian,
You wrote: “The only position I adhere to is that if, through the exercise of my reason acting in good faith I recognize that a superior (e.g., the Pope) does not hold the faith, I am under no obligation to obey him.
1. . is there any meaningful distinction between our positions?
2. Do you really have the courage of your convictions, or
3. are you demanding a sign from the Almighty before you can make up your mind? You really want a guarantee don’t you?
1. If this distinction is meaningful to you , then yes, there is one:
In our personal judgment , on some important matters, he doesn’t believe the same things we do, and so does not hold the Faith in it’s entirety-agreed..
Since he’s not been officially declared by higher authorities in the Church as “not” the Pope, we would consider all Catholics obliged to obey him in all that is right and good that he would command– i.e. insofar as he acts as a faithful representative of Christ.. A bad Pope is still a Pope.
Example: The Pope says ” its a sin to focus on divisions”. We say that’s not what Jesus said, find the quotes from Scripture, tell people there’s a problem with that, and focus on divisions as much as usual-ignoring him, because Jesus said the opposite is to be done in order to save souls. Our consciences are clear before God, because the poor man believes something false and taught it, and we are certain of that..
Do you see any problem with that?
2. Re we have courage of conviction. Yes, and we’ve been well tested.
3. What kind of sign from the Almighty would we be waiting for, and for what purpose? On what are our minds not made up in your opinion? A guarantee of what?
@Lynda
I got the legal help (very costly) but it didn’t help. The social worker that was mandated by the court to study the case seemed to be anti-catholic. Because I said I wanted reconciliation with my wife for the good of the children, it was interpreted as being mentally unstable, and primarily because of that, she gave the entire custody of the children to my wife and let my wife go far away live with their parents. The social worker said I was someone responsible and could care for all physical needs of the children, that I loved them very much and that my children loved me very much too, but my desire for reconciliation was a psychological violence against my wife (manipulation, parental alienation, etc.) … But I’m not fooled. I know that it is hatred against Truth and the Church that is behind all this. They just don’t want to say it plainly and instead do stupid reasoning.
Bottom line : that is the situation in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec where secular humanism reigns supreme.
@all
Thank you very much for your prayers and good words.
Dear Indignus Famulus, sorry to intrude but…
”
1. If this distinction is meaningful to you , then yes, there is one:
In our personal judgment , on some important matters, he doesn’t believe the same things we do, and so does not hold the Faith in it’s entirety-agreed..”
Don’t you mean, ” he doesn’t hold the Faith THEREFORE he doesn’t believe the same things we do”? Not the other way around?
“Since he’s not been officially declared by higher authorities in the Church as “not” the Pope, we would consider all Catholics obliged to obey him in all that is right and good that he would command– i.e. insofar as he acts as a faithful representative of Christ.. A bad Pope is still a Pope.”
What higher autorithities than a Pontiff are there?
Who could judge him on this Earth?
A bad Pope is still a Pope, but can a heretic, ergo outside the Church, still be a Pope, ergo the head of the Church?
“Example: The Pope says ” its a sin to focus on divisions”. We say that’s not what Jesus said, find the quotes from Scripture, tell people there’s a problem with that, and focus on divisions as much as usual-ignoring him, because Jesus said the opposite is to be done in order to save souls. ”
Sorry but what kind of stance is I will follow the Pope as long as he says correct things? What kind of usefulness could a Pope understood in such a way, ever have had for a Church or any instutution whatsoever? If a sheep has to literally discern everytime the man opens his mouth if what he says is orthodox or not (and this is exactly why it is ironic that similar criticism being voiced by “traditionalists” versus SVs)?
What kind of lie would that the Petrine promise truly make?
Sound more like a curse from the devil than Christ’s benevolence if you ask me..
3) I think he means you are waiting, like many others, that Fatima will “fix everything” and we’ll live happily ever after, as many seem to think.
And for that very reason you HAVE to not give up on the Papacy so to speak, because otherwise who would do the consecration?
Having talked about the issue with you at lenght, I do not think this applies to you, however. Nonetheless it could be behind many, and I mean many, other people.
Hope this helps.
@IF: (1) I don’t know how many times I have to bring this to your attention, but Pope Paul IV’s Bull indicated that a heretic, when elevated to the papacy, loses his office WITHOUT a formal declaration if it appears that he deviated from the faith or fell into some heresy from a time prior to his elevation. In such a situation, the Bull permits on its face me as a layman to withdraw obedience from the heretical claimant. I am not making this up; I am relying on a Papal document for my position. What specific decree of the Church do you rely on that permits you to adopt a basically protestant approach and sift a Pope’s teachings?
(2) In the case of an invalid claimant, the history of the Church is just to convene a new conclave and elect a new Pope. The opposite approach – trying a sitting Pope first – wouldn’t work because the Pope is the head of the Church. He would be his own judge! For example, in the instance of Pope Liberius and Pope Urban VI neither were tried and then deposed first – the papal electors just took note that the seat was vacant for certain specific reasons and elected a new Pope.
(3) The Pope is the visible sign of unity in the Church. The Church is a perfect community of those holding the exact same faith. Are these met when a claimant who does not hold the faith whole and inviolate occupies the supreme office? It would rend the visible unity of the Church so it cannot be true that a manifest heretic can hold the Office.
(4) The passage I produced above from 2 John says you are not to welcome a heretic into your abode or wish him godspeed. Even if you reject his teachings, by entertaining him you participate in his wickedness. This is what the Evangelist identified as your duty! Now, if every Catholic honored this command in the case of a heretic superior, the authority of the superior would evaporate from below automatically. No one would honor his commands or -even worse reply to his phone calls, instant messages or e-mails! It is only because Catholics are lukewarm and indifferent about the faith and support heretical superiors that this situation even arises. If Catholics were to withhold their contributions from the Church until the leadership taught the faith whole and inviolate you better believe they would start teaching the faith whole and inviolate because their livelihood would depend on it! How do modernist prelates threaten their orthodox inferiors – by threatening to laicize them and deprive them of their livelihood?
(5) Now Our Lord warned us that those who do not gather with him scatter, did he not? What happens when the Pope – the visible sign of unity in the Church Militant – does not gather with the Lord? Wouldn’t you expect that the Pope and his followers would scatter? Isn’t this the history of the Church for the last fifty years? Ever increasing levels of strife, division and desertion!