New Church—New Rules! The New Order Church is not THE Catholic Church! It is a very clever illusion—the diabolical orientation. We were warned!!
yes it is plain to see that this man is no friend of the mystical body of christ.the question is–how does the curia deal with this heretical man?ever since he stood in the vatican –as bishop of rome—it has been disaster,after disaster.he talks in a garbled fashion lacking clarity and sound doctrinal teaching.he has to be confronted by the loyal sons of the church about his behaviour before it is too late.fatima 2017 is three years away!our lady of fatima pray for us.god bless .philip johnson.
Dear Louie, St. John Bosco, foresaw these great attacks on the ship of the Church-making holes in her sides, sealed up by two
columns-one supporting the Eucharist, and the other-a statue of Our Lady, Help of Christians. How clearly thess are seen, when
contrasted as have just done.
___
We’ve also heard it said —by Our Lord in Matthew 19:6
“Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
—and by the Holy Spirit through St. Paul. “Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily,is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord [1 Cor. 11:27].
—and ironically just 7 years ago by Jorge Bergoglio and the Latin AM.Bishops [A.D. 2007]Aparecida Document
“We should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated.”
==========
But Cardial Kasper now opines: (on Church teaching that civilly-remarried not anulled must live with sexual fidelity to the first, valid marriage.)
— “To live together as brother and sister?””Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.” ttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158959/posts (paragraph. 5)
—“One of his suggestions, According to Cardinal Caffara,(March 24) was that they should undergo a period of penance that would bring them into a full readmission to Communion” (These being the most talked-about ideas after the 2-day consistory of Cardinals)
— And Pope Francis said on day 2: “Yesterday, before falling asleep, ..I re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”
=============
— Let the faitful instead thank Our Heavenly Father, for the clear concise voice of men like Cyprian of Carthage, resounding from–[A.D. 251])in his work on “The Lapsed”..
“All these warnings being scorned and contemned—before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord.”
===============
…”with their hand and mouth? Has Communion in the hand then made its popular comeback via admirers of Vatican II, right alongside the worst sacrileges of that earlier time in Church hisory?
What would St Josemaria Escriva make of all this???
“Never think badly of anyone, not even if the words or conduct of the person in question give you good grounds for doing so.
443
Don’t make negative criticism: if you can’t praise, say nothing.
444
Never speak badly of your brother, not even when you have plenty of reasons. Go first to the Tabernacle, and then go to the priest your father, and tell him also what is worrying you.
And no one else.”
St Josemaria Escriva
And what would Thomas a Kempis make of all this??
“WE SHOULD enjoy much peace if we did not concern ourselves with what others say and do, for these are no concern of ours. How can a man who meddles in affairs not his own, who seeks strange distractions, and who is little or seldom inwardly recollected, live long in peace?
Blessed are the simple of heart for they shall enjoy peace in abundance.”
Thomas a Kempis
Dear my2cents,
Thanks for this link. As conservative as Fox usually is, v/s the rest of the media, it’s still a surprise to see this make it to the public. The only correction we see necessary, would be the idea that the TLM was ever officially suppressed, as it is our understanding that was only how it was treated by too many in authority; so there was no making it legal later on, just a clarification of that fact, and an attempt to make it more available..
Dear Ever mindful,
Was Thomas a Kempis not writing for a religious community under strict rules of obedience to their superiors? We have often recommended his work to friends and family, with the caveat, that one must consider their state of life lest they take all of his admonitions out of context and mis-apply them, begin to suffer from “scruples”.
___
Can you imagine, for example, the type of havoc it would wreak, if a monk saw his superior commit some sin, and went straight to the local newspaper with it, rather than going through the proper channels, or just quietly correcting him and then keeping it to himself, praying more for his brother? The life of a religious is one in which souls are perfected, often through practicing heroic virtues, such as offering up injustices which would otherwise not be tolerated, and in some circumstances, could not. A parent caring for children has duties to report things, a monk would not, for example.
____
Do you really, for one minute, suppose that St. Escriva would apply the advice you just posted here, about making negative criticism, to the destruction of the dogmas of the Faith by those charged with it’s protection and defense? If so, we believe you are sadly mistaken.
___
Contrast you use of those quotes, with the words of St. Catherine of Sienna, for example, who said,” “We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence”. She corrected the Pope, by the way, and he listened to her. We’re sure there were not 1,000 people around all as Saintly as she was, yet she called on everyone to refrain from being silent in the face of evil and error.
God Bless you.
And what do you make of this???
I congratulate the 22 new Members who made their promises this morning: let Christ’s love always be your certainty so that you witness to him with generosity and conviction!
It is beautiful to belong to an association like yours, composed of people of different ages, united in the common desire to bear a special witness to Christian life, serving the Church and our brethren and asking nothing in return. This is beautiful: serving without asking for anything in return, just as Jesus did. Jesus served everyone and asked for nothing in return! Jesus did things free of charge and you do things free of charge. Your reward is exactly this: the joy of serving the Lord and of serving him together! Get to know him better and better, through prayer, retreat days, meditation on the word and study of The Catechism, so as to love him more and more and to serve him with a generous and great heart, with magnanimity. This is a marvellous Christian virtue: magnanimity, being great-hearted, ceaselessly dilating the heart, patiently, loving everyone; and none of that pettiness that does us so much harm, but with magnanimity. Your testimony will be more convincing and effective and your service, too, better and more joyful.
I entrust you all to the motherly protection of Our Lady, and to the intercession of Sts Peter and Paul. I likewise pray for your relatives, especially those who are sick, and for your children who are growing up. I have seen so many children here: it is so beautiful, it is really beautiful! Continue to pray for me. My blessing to you all, with affection. Thank you! I will now impart my blessing to you. Think of all the people you love so much: your family, your friends, so that my Blessing may come down upon them. But think as well of those you do not love so much, of those who hurt you, of those whom you find a little annoying. Think of them too so that this blessing may also be for them.
Address of Pope Francis to The Members of The Sts Peter and St Paul Association June 2013
When St. Bernadette (of Lourdes) was asked: “What do you fear the most?”, her answer was “A bad Catholic!”. She would be terrified of Bergoglio!!
Dear Ever Mindful,
The Pope does say nice things at times, even inspirational things. It is helpful to keep things in context. Here he was speaking to a group which replaced the Palatine Guard of Honor. They work/volunteer at the Vatican taking care of a number of tasks with security, order, and assisting pilgrims. They also take part in a number of charitable works in Vatican City. I don’t think he’d “bite the hand that feeds him”. But we’re not, in this post, concerned with what’s said in cases of common charity or gratitude, but how the words of our Lord and 20 centuries of Church teaching squares with heterodox, flippant or worse comments which he puts forth either off the cuff or in prepared statements. And we take to heart the words of St. Justin Martyr, ” To know the Truth and keep silent is to call down the wrath of God.”
And she didn’t fear the demons she once saw in a vision at all – they fled from the innocent look of a saintly child.
Louie – please tell us, if you can, who does your art? Thank you.
Uh-oh. I read to fast and for some reason saw St. Therese (of Lisieux). It was she that had said vision, of course.
I expected more-or-less the typical Fox neo-conservative idiocy, but this is a good piece. Bravo to the author especially for calling out that buffoon Dolan and kudos to Fox for printing this.
—–
“Earlier this year, it was announced that the internationally-renowned Church of Holy Innocents, the well-attended hub of traditionalism in the city packed with masses, devotions, and regular confessions, all within one of the most beautiful churches in the archdiocese, has been recommended for closure by an archdiocesan commission.
—–
The news shocked traditional Catholics all over the world and has become an international symbol especially as it is well attended and in good financial state.
—–
Church closures and consolidations should be about getting rid of churches that are losing money or have no one attending. Masses at Holy Innocents are frequently standing room only, and documents I was shown suggest that Holy Innocents has run a surplus for the last seven years, and has no debt. This is in contrast to some parishes with no threat of closure that have 6-figure deficits, while other parishes openly dissent from Church teaching free from any scrutiny from the once-conservative archdiocese.
—–
Holy Innocents, devastated by this news that they are earmarked for closure, have organized petitions and are saying daily rosaries and novenas to pray for the preservation of their beloved church.
—–
Consequently at a recent Mass, Rev. Justin Wylie, a priest from South Africa who worked at the U.N. for the Holy See and who said regular masses both at Holy Innocents and at the third place of traditional worship — St. Agnes — compared the situation for traditionalists in the archdiocese to Reformation England and Cromwellian Ireland. Wylie asked traditionalists “why are you scurrying about like ecclesiastical scavengers, hoping for a scrap or two to fall from the table for your very existence?” and called on them to peacefully assert their rights as baptized Catholics.
—–
This was apparently too much in the era of Pope Francis.”
Dear Ever mindful,
We are getting concerned about you, and would also prefer not to keep having to divert our limited research and discussion time to this matter. You apparently find the truths discussed here on Louie’s blog, to be distressing, yet keep returning to read more of them and now seem determined to put an end to it all, by inflicting guilt on posters, (with out of context quotes), and posting Pope Francis PR which is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
___
We are focused here on the dangers to the Faith and the Church we all love, no matter who or what poses them, but taking the lead from what Louie posts.. You don’t seem concerned enough about the 7 billion people being driven away from conversion, if you prefer to focus on 22 who may or may not have been, harmed depending on other remarks made at the time, off the record..
___
We’re beginning to wonder of you’re a relative of his other than by Baptism? But if you really want to imitate him that much, he says he doesn’t approve of proselytizing, and that seems to be what you are doing here today at least. The charitable balance you seem to insist is missing in posters is a bad judgment call on your part, IOHO. . People here, don’t want him to go to Hell, they just want him to stop leading others there. You seem to be trying to promote him, regardless of the facts. And the facts are overwhelming at this point.
__
That being the case, we suggest you find a site more suited to your beliefs, and perhaps one that features writings of the Saints and Fathers where you an learn more about the Faith. You will find quite a few declaring the Pope anti Christ because of his current actions, but we’re sure there are others more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you decide to stay here, we hope you will take part in the discussion, rather than posting these diversions, which waste precious time.
sincerely in Christ our Lord, God Bless you.
God Bless you.
_____
A special Syllabus of Errors is needed in respect of the Pope’s pronouncements alone. Blessed Michael, the Archangel defend us in battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil . . .
Dear Ever Mindful, these are not relevant.
You cannot replace a forensic principle valid for the external forum, with a spiritual principle intended to reform the deviations of the heart….
If you did, you’d create a cult, there ideology governed both in divorce from reality.
Our Lord said, “Not by their words, but by their deeds shall you know them”
I think Our Lord trumps the founder of Opus Dei.
Dear Indignus famulus,Roman Watcher,Mike and Lynda
Thank you all for your gentle correction, and on reflection I understand and concur with your comments and feedback
Indeed my input has been out of context, and therefore not contributory, but in fact divertorary( if there is such a word )
I will keep you all, and Pope Francis in my prayers, and stay on topic
I must decrease, and He must increase
(Referring of course to Our Blessed Lord )
I agree. and I also agree that the diabolical is very deliberately newchurch’s ‘orientation’. what will the devil’s advocates (newchurch-bergoglio apologists) be saying after October? newchurch has made heroes of it’s infernal fake-popes – that horrid traitor montini coming up after the synod and now jpi is in the works. God is permitting this charade to be so obvious that no one with a smidgen of the Faith could be deceived. bergoglio – what ever he is the head of – it is not Christ’s Church. The liturgy and lectures going on every Sunday in most buildings called Catholic is not Catholic – it is antagonistic to Catholicism. Which is why the church of bergoglio embraces Luther and false-religions and promotes errors as par for the course and suppresses the True Faith.
The quotes of St. Josemaria Escriva provided by ever Mindful come from the book, The Way, specifically the chapter on Charity. These points of meditation concern examing our interior dispositions in our personal relationships. I don’t think they’re intended as a general rule forbidding expessing one’s opinions about public figures. St. Josemaria encourged fraternal correction and warning against dangers to the Faith when called for, out of charity.
WOW!…I’ve never actually been witness to anything working like this….just wow!
God’s blessings to all here.
I send the motion!!
The first rule of being a TRUE Modernist is to sound very Catholic on rare occasions in order to regain our confidence. Bergoglio is a master!!!!
Let us all be Ever Mindful of that!!
I second the motion—ooopps!
I want to defend Francis position on the matter.
What he says stems directly and logically out of the Vatican II general position on proselythism and salvation (Lumen Gentium & Others).
If the Moslem, Talmudic and Protestant sects can and probably do have access to Salvation by following their (erroneous) belief systems, and if pagan religions have a part of truth and inspired by God also in some way, who are we to interfere?
Couple that with the heresy of universal salvation+Baptism of Desire+Invincible Ignorance shared by the majority of “catholics” today.
On the Talmudic Sect:
Cardinal Walter Kasper: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”
Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “(….) but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”
On the “orthodox”:
Vatican II Sect’s Balamand Statement with the “Orthodox,” #’s 14-15, 1993: “According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27).15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”
Unitatis Redintegration III on Protestants:
“But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as (sisters and) brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299)”
“(Those) divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”
These are only a few random snippets, one could write a book about the subject.
So, in my opinion, in light of the almost unanimous adherence to such doctrines, namely BOD, I.I., U.S., but also the official position of the Church on the sects of Talmudism, Islam, Protestantism, is it any wonder Francis RIGHTLY came to the logical conclusion that Proselytism is solemn nonsense?
The problem is not Francis.
Recollection (we’re no exception)
helps mankind avoid deception. 🙂
dear Bert Schlomowitz,
Agreed. The problem is not Francis.
from: “FRANCIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM,” –Bp. Donald Sanborn:
—-
“—In other words, there is nothing in Francis which has not been previously found in Vatican II.
Francis is not the problem. Vatican II is the problem.—” Scroll down to the article: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/bishopsblog.html
—
As I am sure you and others here know, Bp. Sanborn holds the position of sedeprivation, as do I.
—
May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Peace not of this world, be to you all here, dear brethren.
maintain that grenade pin between your teeth,
dear salvemur,
pointed & succinct–God love you.
Dear Bert,
In your thorough list, you mentioned the “novel” theory that the Jews don’t need to convert, because of their Old Covenant being claimed unbroken. For anyone interested, we recently discovered that A Catholic Thinker has provided an easy-read explanation with quotes galore to prove how false that idea is. http://www.acatholicthinker.net/the-invalidity-of-the-old-cove/
Lou,
The best title or caption for the above graphic, seems:
Has the False Prophet has arrived (Apoc 19:20)?
Thank you both for the articles linked.
About the novel idea of seems to resemble a timid version of the “Christian Zionism” heresy running rampant in all the christain world, the best evidence for its erroneous nature, apart from many good doctrinal passages and even ex cathedra pronouncedment (including EENS let us not forget) is, in my opinion, the original version of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews which used to read (before COINCIDENTALLY altered by John XXIII and then by Paul VI and then Benedict XVI):
“Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:13-16); so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.
Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness.
Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen”
And, in latin:
“Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum: ut et ipsi agnoscant Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras; quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Pur eumdem Dominum. Amen.
About Vatican II Nostra Aetate on the Talmudic Jews (who, may I remind you, DO NOT PRACTICE the same religion as the historical Jews, rather they practice PHARISAIC TALMUDISM as eventhe Jewish Encyclopedia admits- and we know what Our Lord said about Pharisees),
it seems to me Matthew 10:33 disagrees with its formulation.
Maybe what they wanted to say is that “Jews ought not to be presented as PARTICULARLY rejected” relatively to other faithless.
Then, Pharisaic connection notwithstanding, it would be reasonable.
But as I see it Nostra Aetate is the first step towards the present “Old Covenant valid” stance, with its normalisation of the Judaic position from the traditional Matthew 27:25 one, as understood by the Church and many, even very early, Church Fathers in the past.
As shown on this silly collection, highlighting passages from them as examples of “anti-semitism” (?).
It truly is an upside down world.
In Chapter 13 of Ezechiel, the false prophets are known for “sewing cushions under elbows”-(-making it easier for people to stay in sin, not exhorting them to change). This incurs God’s greatest wrath, as he declares through his true prophet:
“…and will deliver my people out of your hand, neither shall they be any more in your hands to be a prey: and you shall know that I am the Lord. [22] Because with lies you have made the heart of the just to mourn, whom I have not made sorrowful: and have strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way, and live. [23] Therefore you shall not see vain things, nor divine divinations any more, and I will deliver my people out of your hand: and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
____
adveniat regnum Tuum fiat voluntas Tua
Indignus,
my answer to you is above, as I mistakenly posted it (along with many ortographical errors! I miss an edit fuction for comments. I should proofread them more diligently)
It would be interesting to see what radical reactionary Catholics who post these kinds of images of the Pope would say when they are before God and are asked if this was appropriate behavior. Despite any actions of the Pope, is this what Christ teaches about how we should treat the Pope and how we should depict him?
Matthew 16:23
Dear Nicole,
We don’t know what your background is, or how well you know the Faith, so we’re giving your holier-than-thou attitude a pass for this time around.
Your labeling as -“radical reactionary” Catholics of many good and holy people who gather here in defense of their children and families and friends who have been driven from the truth by men who have taken on false beliefs for whatever reasons–we do not judge their hearts, is something you will someday stand before God and regret, we sinerely believe.
___
These “images of the Pope are truth. We correct any that are even doubtful by checking and re-checking to be sure quotes are direct and accurate. God won’t be asking questions, such as you propose, He commands us to fulfill these responsibilities through the Church’s Popes and Saints who were faithful to him:
—St. Catherine of Siena
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
—Pope Felix III
“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
—Pope Leo I
“He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error.”
—Pope St. Pius V
“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.”
—Pope St. Pius X
“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.”
—1 Timothy 5:20
“When they sin rebuke them in the presence of all, that the rest also may have fear.”
—Proverbs 17:15
“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God.”
We hope you think this over, and regret your mini-persecution.
p.s. If your comment was only directed to Louie, we can assure you he checks out his facts. Your comment implies you are willing to dismiss what the Pope does-even if it is damaging to souls. That thinking is what got the churchmen into the mess they are in today. Pray for them, but don’t defend their wrongdoing, or demand respect for it.
R.W. I believe the text is there, short & sweet: STOP THE SYNOD.
What do you guys think of Tim Haines’s take on Radical Catholic Reactionarism (from Vericast)?
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roGOk60dnEQ
–
To answer your question a radical Catholic reactionary is a person who moves close to {at least} material heresy and schism (e.g. the SSPX) and puts themselves outside full communion with the Church. Radical Reactionaries are usually defined as such. A core characteristics of these Rad-Trads is that they think themselves able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. Of course, as you know that is a misplaced opinion. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Catholic faith, in which, as you know there are to be distinguished two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme boss – the Pope.
–
Radical Reactionaries forget that to the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct. On the lay faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to be humble and submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the Bishops (the Shepards) to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
–
Rad Trads commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers. Think about it – if inferiors in the government of the Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.
–
Now folks, let me just say, I’m happy for you to disagree with me, even strongly as a couple of you did, and even aggressively. I’m cool with that. But just so I can respond back to your counter-responses please make sure to point out directly what part of what I am saying you are disagreeing with. It would actually be helpful for you to re-quote me in your response so I know what exactly you are disagreeing with and what I need to respond to and/or defend.
–
pax.
“7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him; Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (….)”
Personally I think that what you regards as “catholic Faith” very well may be just heresy and I am in no way bound to listen to the incessant stream of modernist ungodly filth coming from most of the clergy and even Francis.
l,
Being lifelong regular Novus Ordo participants ( indult Mass attendees when able), we were unfamiliar with these terms. But here’s what the internet has to say about them:
“radical traditionalists””The attitude often comes down to this: “it’s okay for you to be a member of the Catholic Church. That’s fine. But you better not
believe and practise everything the Catholic Church teaches. This is the world these Left-wing elitists want to create, and they’re working very hard to make it happen …to illustrate– using their own words:
——“Traditional Catholics may form the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in America… Radical traditionalists are also unrelated to the many Catholics who call themselves “traditionalist” because they prefer the ancient Latin Mass, though radical traditionalists also prefer their liturgy in Latin…. Other plots abound in radical traditionalist circles, including a “Marxist-Jewish” scheme that is ruining American schools, a “Jewish-homosexual” alliance destroying the priesthood, and a 9/11 conspiracy that maintains the 2001 terrorist attacks were actually “predicted by the Blessed Virgin Mary 84 years ago.”… If radical traditionalists belong to a particular sect – and many do not – it is typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).”…”
SOURCE: Heidi Beirich, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-catholic-radical.html
=====
That explains a lot, although we don’t assume this one group represents all who are against speaking out against falsehoods..
Dear Nicole,
Sede and SSPX are both topics regularly taken to the Forums, as Louie has asked that we stick to the topics at hand, here, and those discussion get lengthy. We don’t speak for either but understand why they exist.
=====
-However the issue of criticism of the Pope is one which applies to this post.
and your cited text states:
“Radical Reactionaries forget that to the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct.”..and later again “Rad Trads commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers”
=======
– Jesus Himself said, “all power on heaven and earth has been given me by My father.” Following the logic in that piece, then, neither the Pope nor anyone else could ever exercise any sort of power, as it all belongs to Jesus. Powers and judgment and authority come from God, and are delegated to man,are all meant to be used for the good of souls. When they are misused, different rules apply. To illustrate:
____
—ISIS’s errors of thought lead them to believe they are acting on Divine authority, while it’s obvious to most of us that they serve the “other” master. To make that judgment you simply compare their behavior to what you know to be right and wrong, quickly seeing that their actions don’t match their claims of doing the what you believe to be God’s will in the treatment of others.
While not equating their stated intentions to those of the Hierarchy,
___
The same is true of our current and recent Pope(s) words and actions and others in the Hierarchy which have been discussed on Louie’s blog. We continue to love and greatly pity any brainwashed, misled or deluded man who had the terrible misfortune to fall prey to the devil’s ideas. The misuse of the passion and other gifts they demonstrate, rendered them harmful .
— We are called by God to hate what He hates, though, in this case- the lies and falsehoods ISIS believe and spread, because of the terrible consequences to their victims (which include both their siblings in crime, proselytes, and those they attack).
___
This shows an easily condemned action by ISIS and the cruelty of which they are capable. (Though un-bloody, it is hard to watch( a prisoner being buried alive standing) yet their victim may be in heaven, while those led away from the Faith are on their way to hell for all eternity. Which is a greater evil? http://gloria.tv/media/DvFiHFPydKY
===============
Your statement about Louie’s photo implied you are willing to totally dismiss the damage to souls being done by the truth it proclaims, in favor of protecting his image from being tarnished by those same truths being made known.
— That is what is condemned by St. John in his 2nd Epistle, 10-11 when he said not even to open the door of your house to one with another doctrine or wish him Godspeed lest you partake of his sins. .(The editor of Catholic Family news said publicly he wouldn’t let this Pope teach catechism to his children. and rightly so, as a parent’s first duty is to educated their children in the Faith).
and sadly, our Popes ideas are a danger to the faith of everyone. Pray for him certainly, but don’t promote a clean image of him, for the sake of those who will follow him away from the only Church that saves anyone.
Indignus Famulus,
I want to support our dear Nicole’s argument on the sheperd etc. by citing Pastor Aeternus (which is probably what she was referring to as a foundation of her discourse).
“And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, [12] and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, [13] and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. [14] Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema”
Now, I would be careful about recognizing Francis’ validity and at the same time denying his status as supreme judge of the faith.
In my view, they are either valid or invalid Pontiffs (per Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio & Canon 188 Codex Iuris Canonici 1917). If you adhere to the former position, it is not allowed to disagree on their judgements and teaching of the Faith.
Vice versa, all their actions are invalid and they are to be avoided “as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs”.
Although our beloved Nicole is wrong, in my opinion, to threaten “RadTrads” whatever that means, with “material heresy”. In fact their position, if we are to assume the Vatican II pontiff’s are legitimate and, as it would seem, the teachings thereof are doctrinal (ad absurdum), would be of FORMAL heresy, as they publicly deny “Catholic” doctrine.
Of course this is only true in a upside down reality such as ours, where Black is White depending on convenience, and DoubleThink seems to be the norm.
Hope this helps shedding some light on the issue,
Thank you both.
@Bert Schlomowitz – you have not said what you disagreed with regarding my post? Perhaps quote the part you think is in error. All you did was quote a document, so Im not sure what part of my comment you think is heresy or in error.
–
@Indignus famulus – I am being relevant to the post if you see my initial comments which were directly about the image posted by Mr. Verrecchio. Flowing from my comments some people asked me to clarify what the definition of a Radical Catholic Reactionary is which is why I did that. That however was again related to my initial post which was commenting on the imaged posted by Mr. V. We did not discuss the nature of the SSPX schism, and Sedevacantism was not even mentioned at all. The SSPX was just mentioned insofar as it related to Radical Catholic Reactionarism which I was asked by another person to clarify what that meant. I think Mr. V would thus certainly view that this conversation is well within the ambit of this particular post. I don’t think he expects folks to be scrupulous in policing his comment boxes.
–
@Indignus – You have my respect and admiration sir for actually pointing out specifically which part of my comments you disagreed with. It makes it now easy for me to engage with you in a discussion and offer a counter-refutation of your disagreements with me. Cheers for that. I will proceed to answer your issues with my comments which you have directly identified, however before I do I just want others to clarify their disagreements like you did. I do not want to refute them and be accused to answering a straw man and unless they specifically point out what they take issue with like you did Im not able to defend why I find the posting of this image as shocking, scandalous, uncatholic and even sinful. {although note I am not imputing any culpability onto the poster of this image or judging them – I am referring to the objective posting of said image}.
–
@Bert Schlomowitz – I’m not clear and what comments of mine you are calling into question or error. If you could please quote the specific comments of mine you consider to be incorrect as Indignus famulus did, this will then help me to firstly see where you think I am wrong and then allow me to defend myself. From your “dear” and “loving” Nic as you call me. {Totally feeling the well renowned humility and charity of self-professed Traditionalists lol. On a side note you may want to check out the comments of folks like Christopher Ferrara and Fr. Chad Ripperger who are Traditionalists who have spoken out harshly and often about how Traditionalists only alienate, sin and hurt their own cause by being rude and prideful. These men have my admiration for honestly being able to identify such a lack of virtue in their own movement.}
Dear Bert,
If you thought we were declaring the Pope not in charge of the Church, then we must have done a bad job of stating what we were trying to say. Sorry. We’re not questioning his authority at all. We’re just saying we don’t see what his being in charge has to do with someone like Louie or a blogposter, stating what the Pope has admitted he is actually saying, and comparing it to dogma to show that it directly contradicts it? The mandate of Christ was go and teach and Baptize. The Pope said No to that, on numerous occasions and stated he had no desire to convert people on various occasions, and told at least two people who wanted to convert, not to, which was also made public. These are known facts, which can harm souls. Where is the prohibition against stating those truths? Is there one in what you just said? Thanks for your input.
Dear Nicole,
Since Bert apparently got a misimpression from what we said to you, we thought we’d try to clarify the point which seemed to be mistaken–our fault for poorly stating it. We are not questioning the authority of the Pope. We are questioning the idea that you seem to be suggesting, that due to his authority, there is some prohibition on speaking or writing the truth with accuracy, in a way that juxtaposes what the Church has always taught with something actually said by him and verified numerous times but which is in direct contradiction to it. Catholics with rightly formed consciences have a duty to speak out against error, wherever it is presented. Are you denying that?
p.s. We’re a Catholic married couple which is why you see “we” .
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That makes sense now. Is Bert a Sede?
–
Can you identify which part of my comments specifically he calls into question? Quote specifically which part of my comments he disagrees with? Also if you disagreed with any other comments I make, again can you re-quote back to me which ones they were so I can proceed to defend them? Cheers.
Dear Nicole,
Just so we’re a bit more on the same page here, are you aware that Pope Francis is leading the charge to allow Mortal sinners to remain in mortal sin and receive the Eucharist at will? And are you aware that he publicly stated he has no interest in making converts of the Protestant Evangelicals, and that he has advised several not to convert when they requested it? And do you know that he has claimed the Jews has gone along with Benedict’s “writing only as a theologian” while Pope, stating that we don’t evangelize the Jews, believing they have an unbroken Covenant? (which is directly opposed to Church teaching for 2000 years?. We’re not being sarcastic, we just want to know how aware you are of these things, personally. We can verify all of them.
Dear Nicole,
You may have some impression that this is a tightly knit kind of social group or something, while it’s more of an ongoing conversation. Some are more regular than others, but people come and go here, depending on what Louie writes that motivates them., and sometimes they give info about who they are or what they believe, other times no one has a clue. We generally only give our own opinions and don’t speak for others, so you’ll have to ask Bert your questions about his beliefs.
___
Generally we can tell you that we have experienced for the most part a lot of sincerely passionate, prayerful, Catholics who have gone through tough times in the Church, love her, Love Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother, and would really love to see things restored to order. Most seem drawn to Louie’s posts out of years of frustration with seeing the Faith distorted by both high-level hierarchy and local prelates, family and friends falling away from the Faith, etc. and the fact that he allows them to post whether they are sede or SSPX or FSSP or like us, just in Love with God and grateful for how the Church has helped us strive to become holier over the years, glad we discovered the encyclicals and older books and writing of the Saints and Fathers, and Fatima and the Rosary and old practices and especially the TLM which we thought we’d hate and instead fell madly in love with.
That’s likely more than what you wondered, but it’s a bit of where we’re coming from.
Can you please show me a primary sourced document or video in the words of Pope Francis himself, that is not a secondary representation (which as you know amounts to hearsay where he:
–
(1) “publicly stated he has no interest in making converts of the Protestant Evangelicals”; and
–
(2) advises people not to convert when they specifically request it?
–
I’ll make sure to consider such evidence when you present it. I know from my own personal experience as a senior lecturer in dogmatic theology how often people have misrepresented my writings or claimed I said things I never said, even faculty close to me. Hence, I am not interested in a he said – she said, type of pop journalism. I’m not interested in reports of journalists saying it is reported the Pope said to this person at that time. To make such an accusation at the Vicar of Christ I would like to see it from the Pope himself either by video or written document from him. Not someone claiming he told them that.
–
He never said the Jews have a covenant which saves them. He said the Abrahamic covenant to them in terms of God’s promises to Abraham was not revoked and he quoted Romans 11 to support himself. Why put your exegesis above the Popes? Do you know that in dogmatic theology there are things which *appear* to contradict what is being taught, even by Popes and yes, many times before Vatican II. But orthodox dogmatic theologians know that mere appearance of contradiction is not actual contradiction. Just because sometimes looks like that at first instance does not make it so. Do you know that in the realm of moral theology, heretics claim the Church (prior to Vat II I might add) reversed its teachings on the teaching of usury? Again it was an apparent contradiction in that it may have looked at such to the independent and individual eye, but the Church has explanations for all these things as to why they are not actual contradictions although it may appear to be such. This includes the Jewish coventant. In the same document Francis clearly says the Church cannot stop proclaiming Christ as the messiah. The understanding is that Christ is the perfect fulfilment to the convenient and the messiah of all, including the Jews, but God who is faithful does not now say the Jews are no longer the people of God for that would be contradicting his eternal promise which he cannot do – we are not Muslims who believe in the abrogation theory. So Francis is merely saying that, not that the Jews have their own covenant which saves them and we have ours which saves us. Christ is the saviour of all. Why impute your personal theological views onto the Magisterium who has allows this certain degree of freedom on this issue. The issue which is not up for grabs which Francis has states many times is that we are saved by Christ alone, even the Jews and that there is only one convent which saves, that is the Covenant of Jesus.
–
Do you believe everything written about the Pope? Would you like if people believed everything they heard *others* say about you? How do you think Christ would feel about your quick judgment of the HOly Father based on what others have said about him and not his own words?
Indignus thats all fine, and I appreciate you tell me these things, but can you please get Bert and even yourself to go back to my original post where I asked you to identify what you disagreed with and re-quote my comments so I can see what you disagreed with. Im referring to my post about individuals judging the shepherds.
Hi Nicole, Bert & IF, Just looking to add my penny’s worth.
Nic- back on 17, you inferred that Louie’s a radical reactionary, I guess, based solely on the picture. Louie ain’t no R.R. as far as I’ve gleaned from his postings. Of course, that’s from my understanding of terms. That’s why throwing labels around to define groups gets problematic. How far back does an R.R. go? Pre-N.O.? How about before the 1962 changes? Pius XII added his touches. How about St. Pius X? Etcetera, etc. You then responded that an R.R. is usually defined as one “who moves close to … material heresy and schism … and puts themselves outside full communion with the Church.” So, just moving “close to” puts one “outside”? So, if you’re not a heretic or schismatic, (or apostate), you could still be considered outside the Church? That sounds a little harsh. (But then we’re dealing with how “they” define the term.)
—
You then discuss Rad-Trads as if the term is identical to R.R. So it seems you’re equating Reactionary with Traditional. Must be a good thing since in link you gave, Tim Haines equated Traditional and Catholic. (He just wants everybody to stop using Traditional because he thinks it gives a bad connotation, I guess.) So, to run with it, it seems you want the Radical Catholics to stop examining and judging the acts of authority. I’m sorry, since VII we’ve been hearing so much about how we’re adults and should follow our conscience, does that not require making judgments? (Of course us Catholics have had to drag “rightly formed” out of those that should be teaching.)
Nicole,
I’m not disagreeing with you, I quote Matthew 16:23 as response to the following:
” is this what Christ teaches about how we should treat the Pope and how we should depict him?”
It would seem Christ was not shy in admonishing the pope.
Also I’m not sure who treated you rudely and offensively as you keep on claiming?
You seem to be one of those novus ordites who are fine with everything as long as it doesn’t include “strong” or “direct” language.
The evidence is shown above and in other comments, where you engage with Indignus Famulus (the one probably most distant from your position of total embrace of V-II Church probably) yet you complain about others like me or salvemur who agree with you because or our language?
It would seem you guys have picked up a trick or two from Francis’ buddies the Jews about victimism as a weapon of discourse.
It would also seem you are one of those “total denial” types, regarding statements from VII pontiffs.
How about the following quote:
Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “(….) but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”
Are you denying the future Benedict XVI here means that Jews are saved IN VIRTUE of their Talmudic Rites (the very notion explicitly condemned in Cantate Domino)?
Do you even believe holding such a view would have any consequence regarding the status of a Pontiff or… why else are you asking for proof of Francis ever saying similar things?
What does the following passage in Evangelii Gaudium mean?
“254. Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,[199] and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”.[200] But due to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace, God’s working in them tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn bring others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God.[201] While these lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ, they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences. The same Spirit everywhere brings forth various forms of practical wisdom which help people to bear suffering and to live in greater peace and harmony. As Christians, we can also benefit from these treasures built up over many centuries, which can help us better to live our own beliefs. ”
Is not Francis here explicitly stating the Holy Ghost is at work in non Catholic (maybe even non christian) religions?
Is that sound doctrine?
What does Francis mean when he says in “On Heaven and Earth” the following:
“The Church officialy recognizes that the people of Israel continue to be the Chosen People”?
So Francis’ best friend Skorka is lieing when reporting Francis said to him time and time again “The Catholic Church cannot engage in Proselythism” versus the Talmudic Jews?
Is it ok for him to actively engage in Talmudic rites and actively favour the practice by providing Kosher food and Churches for them?
Thank you.
Ps-Indignus, I will respond to you later today, thanks
Dear Nicole,
I find it best to check just how far out the Vatican II church is, in regards to the Protestant heresy, to look at Benedict XVI, and not Francis.
You can Google many of his outrageous statements disseminated in all his books (which are many) or simply watch videos on Youtube about it, complete photographical proof ot the veridicity of the text presented.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
but, to put it bluntly, assuming they are valid Popes, it should follow that THEIR intepretation and guidance is the correct one, at least as a working principle.
By contradicting their personal leadership in the matter of faith and morals, are you not doing what Nicole accuses RadTrats (or whomever) to do?
And contradicting Pastor Aeternus? You simply cannot revere and submit to a merely theoretical notion of the Pope, ignoring the actual, present occupant of the Chair of Saint Peter.
Given that the following quote from St. Bellarmine:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. ”
(De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29)
Where do you find and how do you justify the belief that a erring Pope could be resisted and ignored?
For as we read in Mystici Corporis Christi:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (…)As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
As I said before, in my opinion if the occupants of the Vatican are indeed true Popes, they cannot be disobeyed.
But as we can see above, one has to “profess the true faith” in order to be a member of the Body, ergo the Church. And obviously someone outside the Body cannot be its Head.
Do the latest Vatican II pontiffs PROFESS the TRUE faith?
Dear Bert first, quoting your quote and comment:
“…souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. ”
(De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29)
apparently does not deal of a situation similar to ours
As I said before, in my opinion if the occupants of the Vatican are indeed true Popes, they cannot be disobeyed.”
Dear Bert. The first quote does apply. We are not judging the Pope as a heretic, we are not deposing him, and we are not punishing him.
All Catholics have an obligation to speak and spread truth and to oppose evil and falsehood, no matter who is speaking it. Oppose the Falsehood, does not require us to take direct action to punish, etc.
You take it to the next level, assuming you cannot do those ordinary acts required of every man, by ignoring the actual words you quoted, and calling speaking of truth “disobedience”. Don’t change the words to apparently win an argument. Go by their true and intended meanings.
When a Saint says not to speak the truth anymore, unlike St. Catherine who said let 100,000 tongues cry out, then you can talk about other alternatives.
___
What we privately think this Pope is doing doesn’t matter as much as what effect his words have on souls when he contradicts dogma and the mandate of Christ. IF he proposes reception of Communion without sanctifying Grace, there is no way to justify it. He has not promulgated that, and it is wise to wait and see what happens, preparing by studying Church teachings.
___
You seem to be urging others to join you in declaring him non Catholic. We believe God is going to take action to fulfill the Fatima prophecy, and pray it will be in providing more Graces for conversion wherever necessary, including at the top, so the Consecration of Russia gets done, and there is no need for any declaration about the Pope, other than that he is in perfect harmony with the past and present truth, safeguarded by Christ Himself with His promised Presence till the end, and by the truths themselves which withstand the test of time and apostates. We wait and live in that hope that things will change soon.
But as we can see above, one has to “profess the true faith” in order to be a member of the Body, ergo the Church. And obviously someone outside the Body cannot be its Head.
Where do you find and how do you justify the belief that a erring Pope could be resisted and ignored?”
For as we read in Mystici Corporis Christi:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (…)As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Sorry, the rest of your quote printed at the end of our post,
THOSE LAST TWO PARAGRAPS AREN NOT OUR WORDS
“But as we can see, one has to be….
Nicole,
could you please quote where Francis explicitly talked about “Abrahamic” Covenant?
Because big chief Cardinal Walter Kasper regarding the MOSAIC COVENANT said the following: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”
Thank you.
ear Nicole,
—If you set aside the strong-arm-mode inherent in your statements, including threats of Divine judgment for publicly denouncing false teachings, you’ll contribute without engendering antagonism in return, and find us,(and we think, some others)s receptive to truth-whether it agrees with our opinions, or not.
— Trust of the Hierarchy was all but totally destroyed in the last half century, by their own actions, outrageous abuses of authority and betrayal of the faithful, including many of our own loved ones- directly, and indirectly; while the press you denounce as if unable to provide any reliable, verifiable, evidence or truth, when used with due dilligence, has proven far more valuable in that regard than our Church reps.- sad to say. We’ve seen bishops confess publicly that they lied to the press to cover up their cover ups, and what we’ve experienced personally could fill more than one book. Exceptions are on both sides, but our Popes have let us down for so long, without any possible great public outcry, that efforts like Louie’s may come too little too late, but come they must and should. The hierarchy still have authority and power, but have to re-earn trust, which they are further destroying right now, instead. The time for blind obedience to their every whim, is over.
___
So many theologians have contributedto this destruction, that, although you may sincerely feel compelled to protect the Popes from reactionary abuses, your claimed credentials are more a badge of dishonor these days. Your rejection of main news sources as hearsay, leaves the public back where it was 50 years ago, relying on rarely produced written statements, and video evidence. That adds to the negative perception you bring, of a liberal out to defend the indefensible, by eliminating all the valid proof of their crimes.Parents and grandparents like us aren’t buying into that while corruption continues to spread and the Church we love is attacked. Cardinals turn to the press-as Caffara recently did to express his worries publicly about the October Synod and Kasper’s proposed “period of penance” which is then to be followed by allowing people living in sin to receive the Eucharist regularly- while remaining in that sinful state. His desperation to have the truth heard above the Popes’ praise of it as “serene theology done on the knees” is evident. The Cardinal obviously expected that news and his testimony to be accepted as truth by the Faithful.
____
In the link provided below, Jimmy Akin does a fair job of presenting both sides of the Jewish evangelizing issue, defending the possibilites of things Benedict could have meant, but also pointing out that ” this is precisely the kind of exegetical point on which he indicated people are free to contradict him. “How much did the salvation motive play a role in first century evangelization according to the New Testament?” is an exegetical question, not a dogmatic one.
___
Your response to the Jewish question, did not include our main reference- to Benedict’s writing (as a theologian, not as Pope) in his book,Jesus of Nazareth: stating: —“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” (Christians should) “wait for the time fixed for this by God”
— ““the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews”. Which came after he emphasized the idea that the “hardening” which God let fall upon them till after the “time of the Gentiles”.
“Akin presents the possibility that Benedict only meant less emphasis and argues,”But there are only a few million Jews in the world, and there are over a billion Catholics. We’re not going to save that much of our evangelistic energy by adopting a limited evangelization policy for the Jewish people.There is also something repugnant about the idea of hindering Christ’s own people, as a matter of policy, from learning about him. Certainly this was contrary to St. Paul’s practice, which was to preach to the Jewish community first and then to the gentiles.” http://jimmyakin.com/2011/03/pope-dont-evangelize-jews-really.html
___
Dear Nicole, Continuiing:
The Pope’s “private” 3-hour luncheon with Evangelicals, produced very credible reports from those attending, just after they left.
—-In this video one attending Evangelical couple rejoice in sharing the news with their friends:
— John Arnott:”the Pope said “”I’m really not expecting any of you to join the Catholic Church, please understand, that’s not what this is about.” “What we’re talking about is a unified positions to go before the world and say, We’re proclaiming Christ as the only hope of salvation.” http://revivalmag.com/article/meeting-pope-francis
___
—-And the article, written by another attendee Brian Stiller, we found most often quoted by normally reliable people, including priests loyal to the Pope who blog: http://dispatchesfrombrian.com/2014/07/09/lunch-with-the-pope/
— “I know some will wonder if we lack discernment, dining as we did with the head of a church many see as heretical. I’m clear in the importance of the Reformation… No one is interested in rewinding the clock. Also to construct a united church isn’t doable and neither is it in our interest. … Chistians, one-half are linked to the Vatican. Conferencing with Rome no more compromises our doctrinal commitments than it would by meeting with the heads of other religions..
—” what kind of Catholic Church we as Evangelicals want to see. At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question and his comment was, “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 be about showing the love of Jesus.” …We spoke about how in our diversity we might find unity and strength. Borrowing from Swiss Protestant theologian Oscar Cullman, we reflected how “reconciled diversity” allows us to stand within our own understandings of how Christ effects salvation.”
This is good evidence to us and many others of a continuing string of proofs.
Caserta is another example. Where the distortion of “unity in diversity: is taken to mean unity without return, and Jesus’ statement that He came to bring a sword of division is in the dust heap, in favor of Tony Palmer’s “Unity is divine Diversity is Diabolical” The Pope repeats those sentiments as coming from an Evangelical that he loves very much. Tony Palmer had just been killed July 20, in a head on collision while riding his motorcycle . The local Bishop says the Pope ordered him to bury Palmer as a Bishop from the Church of St. John the Evangelist in Bath, England. TonyPalmer stated publicly just a few months before his death, The Holy Spirit is uniting us without doctrines or traditions of men”.
Indignus Famulus,
but St. Bellarmine quote doesn’t refer to any lay catholic, but specific people as the link I posted illustrates, and does not refer to a doctrinally deficient pope, but merely an amoral one.
In fact Bellarmine treats the specifics of an hypothetical heretic being elected as Pope, I’m sure you’re aware of this.
Moreover I’m not trying to convince or convert anyone, because I’m not even sure of being right (even though the Sedevacantist arguments seems more convincing by the day) and a Sedevacantist existence is indeed a terrible and miserable one, merely pointing out that as far as I know, while there are no doctrinal arguments for disobedience, except that quote (and maybe a few others? I’m not sure) taken out of context, there is ample evidence and dispositions regarding rejecting a claimant “in toto” due to heresy et alia.
God bless.
Ps: Thank you for the clarification on the last passage/re-quoting, as it was puzzling.
Indignus Famulus,
while researching documents today I stumbled upon this article: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/comedy-hour-with-john-salza.htm
While I DO NOT endorse the tone, language, and conclusions expressed by the authors, in the slightest, I cannot help but think it is insightful and contains various precious snippets and passages from the Magisterium on the matter we were just discussing.
Hope it helps,
Bert.
Dear Bert,
Thanks for the clarification and links, and your patience with us.
We were in a rush, trying to respond to several posts at once, and didn’t view the link you put in, before answering. Obviously not addressing your point. Sorry. We’ll read both of these and get back to you. We do agree it is getting very confusing. We’ll have to investigate your point about objecting to sin versus objecting to doctrinal deficiency.
___
We are thinking of exploring it all from this angle: It’s not we who oppose those doctrinal deficiencies, as much as prior popes who spoke dogmatically and our consciences which were rightly formed by them, which must, in the end determine our thoughts and actions about what is right for each situation.
But we’ll check out your links to see if they preclude or contradict that idea..
With all due respect to the Cardinal, he is wrong. All orthodox theology manuals which discuss covenental theology make it clear that only Christ saves.
–
Regarding Pope Benedict, may I ask, what do you know of what St. Augustine said about the difference of formal heretics and the ‘children’ or generations or descendents of heretics and if you consider St. Augustine himself to be a heretic?
I find it interesting that no one could actually point out specifically what I said that was wrong. I challenge anyone to quote back to me any part of my comments that you think are in error. I think the silence on this matter is revealing.
“For you will certainly carry out God’s purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John.”
C.S. Lewis
Nicole,
How could you? I thought “to the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct.” Yet you say the Cardinal’s wrong? I read nothing of shepherdess. St. JP2, ex cathedra, said women can’t be priests, (ergo bishop). Are you really a Nicholas? Or, are we allowed to judge/correct Cardinals?
oh no, did you just quote the “heretic” C.S Lewis who was not Catholic and thus is now burning in hell fire. Really should we listen to anything heretics have to say. They are Judas and leading the fight for Satan….
Mike,
I am outraged and offended by Nicole’s statement on our beloved Cardinal Walter Kasper.
She clearly lacks charity, and think herself able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think she is allowed to examine and judge after her own fashion the acts of authority.
This greatly hurts the unity of the Church.
Dear Nicole, –the don’t convert info you requested:
“Many are asking me what Jorge Bergoglio is really like. He is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. I have been with him on many occasions and he always makes me sit next to him and invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done. He is consistently humble and wise, outstandingly gifted yet a common man.
He is no fool and speaks out very quietly yet clearly when necessary. He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate [creating by the Catholic Church to accommodate alienated Anglicans] was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans. I consider this to be an inspired appointment not because he is a close and personal friend but because of who he is In Christ. http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/church-universal-needs-anglicans-pope-francis
____
Qui legit intellegat!
Nicole: here’s s the link to the Tony Palmer video posted on Louie’s July Tony Palmer blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHbEWw7l_Ek
We are witnessing the Unity of Christians by the Spirit of God, and NOT by the doctrines and traditions of men”.
__He was needed as a “bridge” Bergoglio, his spiritual Father told him not to convert he reiterates that in another place someone posted a while ago.
Final do not convert (Ratzinger)
The information comes from the Vatican Radio article (in German) on Sigrid Spath:Sigrid Spath was the most famous German translator in Rome. She worked in the Jesuit General House, and then in the Vatican, since the
days of Paul VI and translated around 70,000 pages of documents The granddaughter of a Lutheran pastor, Spath was born in Villach,
___
Carinthia (Austria), on August 1, 1939 (that is, just one month before the war), and she died this Sunday, February 2, 2014, in Rome.
—One of her favorite books was Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity”,
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who, according to her own testimony, advised Sigrid Spath to remain a Protestant, and not to convert to the Catholic Church, as she had considered in a moment of crisis. She could do more for both churches if she remained a Protestant, said the Cardinal. The Carinthian remained in the Protestant Christuskirche in Rome [the Evangelical-Lutheran community of Rome] throughout her life. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/she-wanted-to-convert-but-she-listened.html
======
The article notes that it is not advisable to make life changing decisions in moments of crises, but the reasons given by Ratzinger are what cause concern here.
Dear Nicole, . First hand quotes for proof (as you request) .
—Your words par. #26:
“I find it interesting that no one could actually point out specifically what I said that was wrong. I challenge anyone to quote back to me any part of my comments that you think are in error. I think the silence on this matter is revealing.”
—Your words from par. # 21 above:
@Indignus – You have my respect and admiration sir for actually pointing out specifically which part of my comments you disagreed with. It makes it now easy for me to engage with you in a discussion and offer a counter-refutation of your disagreements with me. Cheers for that. I will proceed to answer your issues with my comments which you have directly identified….I just want others to clarify their disagreements like you did.
======
Nicole: #24 2nd Par. above:
“Can you please show me a primary sourced document or video in the words of Pope Francis himself, that is not a secondary representation (which as you know amounts to hearsay)”
_____
Bert Schlomowitz August 16, 2014 4:14 pm Reply
Nicole, … big chief Cardinal Walter Kasper regarding the MOSAIC COVENANT said the following: “… the old theory of substitution….is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” .
—Your response (Nicole August 16, 2014 7:22 pm Reply)
“With all due respect to the Cardinal, he is wrong. All orthodox theology manuals which discuss covenantal theology make it clear that only Christ saves”.
=====
You didn’t even ask Bert where he got that quote, and proceeded immediately to make a serious judgment against Cardinal Kasper based on what, according you above, is just “hearsay”, and using unspecified theology manuals as your proof.
======
You’re Busted.
Dear Indignus Famulus, I marvel at your patience with such speciousness. God bless your work for Him, for His Church, for the truth.
Nicole when you have time please post clarifications on Francis statements on the Jews and specifically about him meaning the Abrahamic Covenant and not Mosaic.
It is of the utmost importance, especially since Fr. Kramer embraced the Sede Vacante position over them, so if indeed Bergoglio didn’t at all mean what he said about Jews still being the Chosen (ignoring modern day Talmudic Jews do not even follow Judaism but Pharisaic Talmudism) and the “Covenant” still being valid, we could just contact him and no doubt he would promptly abjure his error…
Dear Lynda,
We sure we feel the same degree of frustration as others, but we try to stop and pray, and picture the person frustrating us as if they were suddenly free of the blindness which causes them to act blindly or deceitfully or pridefully or whatever the problems are. Then we try to write back to that person, with the hope that our words will help bring them more into that light.
Thank you for your encouraging words, though, too. We had just finished a post to Nicole (see # 35-36 on the Deficient Churchmen blog) and were thinking it was too long to post. We happened to see your comment and thought-what the heck it’s for a good cause…so thanks again 🙂
Dear Nicole,
We haven’t yet figured out what you meant by writing, “can you please get Bert to….”
Why would we have any more influence over his actions than you do, and why should we try to influence someone to do your bidding, when we don’t like your attitude and think your ideas are wrong, so far.
Bravo! I can almost see St. Michael smiling and patting your back!
I have tried to be charitable about this awful Bergoglio but I keep going back to something I read recently – ” If Bergoglio was taken to court accused of being a Catholic – he’d be acquitted!”
May God and His Blessed Mother guard, guide and protect you and all here.
New Church—New Rules! The New Order Church is not THE Catholic Church! It is a very clever illusion—the diabolical orientation. We were warned!!
yes it is plain to see that this man is no friend of the mystical body of christ.the question is–how does the curia deal with this heretical man?ever since he stood in the vatican –as bishop of rome—it has been disaster,after disaster.he talks in a garbled fashion lacking clarity and sound doctrinal teaching.he has to be confronted by the loyal sons of the church about his behaviour before it is too late.fatima 2017 is three years away!our lady of fatima pray for us.god bless .philip johnson.
Dear Louie, St. John Bosco, foresaw these great attacks on the ship of the Church-making holes in her sides, sealed up by two
columns-one supporting the Eucharist, and the other-a statue of Our Lady, Help of Christians. How clearly thess are seen, when
contrasted as have just done.
___
We’ve also heard it said —by Our Lord in Matthew 19:6
“Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
—and by the Holy Spirit through St. Paul. “Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily,is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord [1 Cor. 11:27].
—and ironically just 7 years ago by Jorge Bergoglio and the Latin AM.Bishops [A.D. 2007]Aparecida Document
“We should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated.”
==========
But Cardial Kasper now opines: (on Church teaching that civilly-remarried not anulled must live with sexual fidelity to the first, valid marriage.)
— “To live together as brother and sister?””Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.” ttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158959/posts (paragraph. 5)
—“One of his suggestions, According to Cardinal Caffara,(March 24) was that they should undergo a period of penance that would bring them into a full readmission to Communion” (These being the most talked-about ideas after the 2-day consistory of Cardinals)
— And Pope Francis said on day 2: “Yesterday, before falling asleep, ..I re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”
=============
— Let the faitful instead thank Our Heavenly Father, for the clear concise voice of men like Cyprian of Carthage, resounding from–[A.D. 251])in his work on “The Lapsed”..
“All these warnings being scorned and contemned—before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord.”
===============
…”with their hand and mouth? Has Communion in the hand then made its popular comeback via admirers of Vatican II, right alongside the worst sacrileges of that earlier time in Church hisory?
here’s the above link that didn’t take the first time: hope this works–
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158959/posts
Even Fox News gets it:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/12/pope-francis-effect-war-on-conservative-catholics-in-new-york/
What would St Josemaria Escriva make of all this???
“Never think badly of anyone, not even if the words or conduct of the person in question give you good grounds for doing so.
443
Don’t make negative criticism: if you can’t praise, say nothing.
444
Never speak badly of your brother, not even when you have plenty of reasons. Go first to the Tabernacle, and then go to the priest your father, and tell him also what is worrying you.
And no one else.”
St Josemaria Escriva
And what would Thomas a Kempis make of all this??
“WE SHOULD enjoy much peace if we did not concern ourselves with what others say and do, for these are no concern of ours. How can a man who meddles in affairs not his own, who seeks strange distractions, and who is little or seldom inwardly recollected, live long in peace?
Blessed are the simple of heart for they shall enjoy peace in abundance.”
Thomas a Kempis
Dear my2cents,
Thanks for this link. As conservative as Fox usually is, v/s the rest of the media, it’s still a surprise to see this make it to the public. The only correction we see necessary, would be the idea that the TLM was ever officially suppressed, as it is our understanding that was only how it was treated by too many in authority; so there was no making it legal later on, just a clarification of that fact, and an attempt to make it more available..
Dear Ever mindful,
Was Thomas a Kempis not writing for a religious community under strict rules of obedience to their superiors? We have often recommended his work to friends and family, with the caveat, that one must consider their state of life lest they take all of his admonitions out of context and mis-apply them, begin to suffer from “scruples”.
___
Can you imagine, for example, the type of havoc it would wreak, if a monk saw his superior commit some sin, and went straight to the local newspaper with it, rather than going through the proper channels, or just quietly correcting him and then keeping it to himself, praying more for his brother? The life of a religious is one in which souls are perfected, often through practicing heroic virtues, such as offering up injustices which would otherwise not be tolerated, and in some circumstances, could not. A parent caring for children has duties to report things, a monk would not, for example.
____
Do you really, for one minute, suppose that St. Escriva would apply the advice you just posted here, about making negative criticism, to the destruction of the dogmas of the Faith by those charged with it’s protection and defense? If so, we believe you are sadly mistaken.
___
Contrast you use of those quotes, with the words of St. Catherine of Sienna, for example, who said,” “We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence”. She corrected the Pope, by the way, and he listened to her. We’re sure there were not 1,000 people around all as Saintly as she was, yet she called on everyone to refrain from being silent in the face of evil and error.
God Bless you.
And what do you make of this???
I congratulate the 22 new Members who made their promises this morning: let Christ’s love always be your certainty so that you witness to him with generosity and conviction!
It is beautiful to belong to an association like yours, composed of people of different ages, united in the common desire to bear a special witness to Christian life, serving the Church and our brethren and asking nothing in return. This is beautiful: serving without asking for anything in return, just as Jesus did. Jesus served everyone and asked for nothing in return! Jesus did things free of charge and you do things free of charge. Your reward is exactly this: the joy of serving the Lord and of serving him together! Get to know him better and better, through prayer, retreat days, meditation on the word and study of The Catechism, so as to love him more and more and to serve him with a generous and great heart, with magnanimity. This is a marvellous Christian virtue: magnanimity, being great-hearted, ceaselessly dilating the heart, patiently, loving everyone; and none of that pettiness that does us so much harm, but with magnanimity. Your testimony will be more convincing and effective and your service, too, better and more joyful.
I entrust you all to the motherly protection of Our Lady, and to the intercession of Sts Peter and Paul. I likewise pray for your relatives, especially those who are sick, and for your children who are growing up. I have seen so many children here: it is so beautiful, it is really beautiful! Continue to pray for me. My blessing to you all, with affection. Thank you! I will now impart my blessing to you. Think of all the people you love so much: your family, your friends, so that my Blessing may come down upon them. But think as well of those you do not love so much, of those who hurt you, of those whom you find a little annoying. Think of them too so that this blessing may also be for them.
Address of Pope Francis to The Members of The Sts Peter and St Paul Association June 2013
When St. Bernadette (of Lourdes) was asked: “What do you fear the most?”, her answer was “A bad Catholic!”. She would be terrified of Bergoglio!!
Dear Ever Mindful,
The Pope does say nice things at times, even inspirational things. It is helpful to keep things in context. Here he was speaking to a group which replaced the Palatine Guard of Honor. They work/volunteer at the Vatican taking care of a number of tasks with security, order, and assisting pilgrims. They also take part in a number of charitable works in Vatican City. I don’t think he’d “bite the hand that feeds him”. But we’re not, in this post, concerned with what’s said in cases of common charity or gratitude, but how the words of our Lord and 20 centuries of Church teaching squares with heterodox, flippant or worse comments which he puts forth either off the cuff or in prepared statements. And we take to heart the words of St. Justin Martyr, ” To know the Truth and keep silent is to call down the wrath of God.”
And she didn’t fear the demons she once saw in a vision at all – they fled from the innocent look of a saintly child.
Louie – please tell us, if you can, who does your art? Thank you.
Uh-oh. I read to fast and for some reason saw St. Therese (of Lisieux). It was she that had said vision, of course.
I expected more-or-less the typical Fox neo-conservative idiocy, but this is a good piece. Bravo to the author especially for calling out that buffoon Dolan and kudos to Fox for printing this.
—–
“Earlier this year, it was announced that the internationally-renowned Church of Holy Innocents, the well-attended hub of traditionalism in the city packed with masses, devotions, and regular confessions, all within one of the most beautiful churches in the archdiocese, has been recommended for closure by an archdiocesan commission.
—–
The news shocked traditional Catholics all over the world and has become an international symbol especially as it is well attended and in good financial state.
—–
Church closures and consolidations should be about getting rid of churches that are losing money or have no one attending. Masses at Holy Innocents are frequently standing room only, and documents I was shown suggest that Holy Innocents has run a surplus for the last seven years, and has no debt. This is in contrast to some parishes with no threat of closure that have 6-figure deficits, while other parishes openly dissent from Church teaching free from any scrutiny from the once-conservative archdiocese.
—–
Holy Innocents, devastated by this news that they are earmarked for closure, have organized petitions and are saying daily rosaries and novenas to pray for the preservation of their beloved church.
—–
Consequently at a recent Mass, Rev. Justin Wylie, a priest from South Africa who worked at the U.N. for the Holy See and who said regular masses both at Holy Innocents and at the third place of traditional worship — St. Agnes — compared the situation for traditionalists in the archdiocese to Reformation England and Cromwellian Ireland. Wylie asked traditionalists “why are you scurrying about like ecclesiastical scavengers, hoping for a scrap or two to fall from the table for your very existence?” and called on them to peacefully assert their rights as baptized Catholics.
—–
This was apparently too much in the era of Pope Francis.”
Dear Ever mindful,
We are getting concerned about you, and would also prefer not to keep having to divert our limited research and discussion time to this matter. You apparently find the truths discussed here on Louie’s blog, to be distressing, yet keep returning to read more of them and now seem determined to put an end to it all, by inflicting guilt on posters, (with out of context quotes), and posting Pope Francis PR which is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
___
We are focused here on the dangers to the Faith and the Church we all love, no matter who or what poses them, but taking the lead from what Louie posts.. You don’t seem concerned enough about the 7 billion people being driven away from conversion, if you prefer to focus on 22 who may or may not have been, harmed depending on other remarks made at the time, off the record..
___
We’re beginning to wonder of you’re a relative of his other than by Baptism? But if you really want to imitate him that much, he says he doesn’t approve of proselytizing, and that seems to be what you are doing here today at least. The charitable balance you seem to insist is missing in posters is a bad judgment call on your part, IOHO. . People here, don’t want him to go to Hell, they just want him to stop leading others there. You seem to be trying to promote him, regardless of the facts. And the facts are overwhelming at this point.
__
That being the case, we suggest you find a site more suited to your beliefs, and perhaps one that features writings of the Saints and Fathers where you an learn more about the Faith. You will find quite a few declaring the Pope anti Christ because of his current actions, but we’re sure there are others more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you decide to stay here, we hope you will take part in the discussion, rather than posting these diversions, which waste precious time.
sincerely in Christ our Lord, God Bless you.
God Bless you.
_____
A special Syllabus of Errors is needed in respect of the Pope’s pronouncements alone. Blessed Michael, the Archangel defend us in battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil . . .
Dear Ever Mindful, these are not relevant.
You cannot replace a forensic principle valid for the external forum, with a spiritual principle intended to reform the deviations of the heart….
If you did, you’d create a cult, there ideology governed both in divorce from reality.
Our Lord said, “Not by their words, but by their deeds shall you know them”
I think Our Lord trumps the founder of Opus Dei.
Dear Indignus famulus,Roman Watcher,Mike and Lynda
Thank you all for your gentle correction, and on reflection I understand and concur with your comments and feedback
Indeed my input has been out of context, and therefore not contributory, but in fact divertorary( if there is such a word )
I will keep you all, and Pope Francis in my prayers, and stay on topic
I must decrease, and He must increase
(Referring of course to Our Blessed Lord )
I agree. and I also agree that the diabolical is very deliberately newchurch’s ‘orientation’. what will the devil’s advocates (newchurch-bergoglio apologists) be saying after October? newchurch has made heroes of it’s infernal fake-popes – that horrid traitor montini coming up after the synod and now jpi is in the works. God is permitting this charade to be so obvious that no one with a smidgen of the Faith could be deceived. bergoglio – what ever he is the head of – it is not Christ’s Church. The liturgy and lectures going on every Sunday in most buildings called Catholic is not Catholic – it is antagonistic to Catholicism. Which is why the church of bergoglio embraces Luther and false-religions and promotes errors as par for the course and suppresses the True Faith.
The quotes of St. Josemaria Escriva provided by ever Mindful come from the book, The Way, specifically the chapter on Charity. These points of meditation concern examing our interior dispositions in our personal relationships. I don’t think they’re intended as a general rule forbidding expessing one’s opinions about public figures. St. Josemaria encourged fraternal correction and warning against dangers to the Faith when called for, out of charity.
WOW!…I’ve never actually been witness to anything working like this….just wow!
God’s blessings to all here.
I send the motion!!
The first rule of being a TRUE Modernist is to sound very Catholic on rare occasions in order to regain our confidence. Bergoglio is a master!!!!
Let us all be Ever Mindful of that!!
I second the motion—ooopps!
I want to defend Francis position on the matter.
What he says stems directly and logically out of the Vatican II general position on proselythism and salvation (Lumen Gentium & Others).
If the Moslem, Talmudic and Protestant sects can and probably do have access to Salvation by following their (erroneous) belief systems, and if pagan religions have a part of truth and inspired by God also in some way, who are we to interfere?
Couple that with the heresy of universal salvation+Baptism of Desire+Invincible Ignorance shared by the majority of “catholics” today.
On the Talmudic Sect:
Cardinal Walter Kasper: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”
Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “(….) but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”
On the “orthodox”:
Vatican II Sect’s Balamand Statement with the “Orthodox,” #’s 14-15, 1993: “According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27).15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”
Unitatis Redintegration III on Protestants:
“But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as (sisters and) brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299)”
“(Those) divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”
These are only a few random snippets, one could write a book about the subject.
So, in my opinion, in light of the almost unanimous adherence to such doctrines, namely BOD, I.I., U.S., but also the official position of the Church on the sects of Talmudism, Islam, Protestantism, is it any wonder Francis RIGHTLY came to the logical conclusion that Proselytism is solemn nonsense?
The problem is not Francis.
Recollection (we’re no exception)
helps mankind avoid deception. 🙂
dear Bert Schlomowitz,
Agreed. The problem is not Francis.
from: “FRANCIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM,” –Bp. Donald Sanborn:
—-
“—In other words, there is nothing in Francis which has not been previously found in Vatican II.
Francis is not the problem. Vatican II is the problem.—” Scroll down to the article:
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/bishopsblog.html
—
As I am sure you and others here know, Bp. Sanborn holds the position of sedeprivation, as do I.
—
May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Peace not of this world, be to you all here, dear brethren.
maintain that grenade pin between your teeth,
dear salvemur,
pointed & succinct–God love you.
Dear Bert,
In your thorough list, you mentioned the “novel” theory that the Jews don’t need to convert, because of their Old Covenant being claimed unbroken. For anyone interested, we recently discovered that A Catholic Thinker has provided an easy-read explanation with quotes galore to prove how false that idea is.
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/the-invalidity-of-the-old-cove/
Lou,
The best title or caption for the above graphic, seems:
Has the False Prophet has arrived (Apoc 19:20)?
Thank you both for the articles linked.
About the novel idea of seems to resemble a timid version of the “Christian Zionism” heresy running rampant in all the christain world, the best evidence for its erroneous nature, apart from many good doctrinal passages and even ex cathedra pronouncedment (including EENS let us not forget) is, in my opinion, the original version of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews which used to read (before COINCIDENTALLY altered by John XXIII and then by Paul VI and then Benedict XVI):
“Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:13-16); so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.
Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness.
Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen”
And, in latin:
“Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum: ut et ipsi agnoscant Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras; quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Pur eumdem Dominum. Amen.
About Vatican II Nostra Aetate on the Talmudic Jews (who, may I remind you, DO NOT PRACTICE the same religion as the historical Jews, rather they practice PHARISAIC TALMUDISM as eventhe Jewish Encyclopedia admits- and we know what Our Lord said about Pharisees),
it seems to me Matthew 10:33 disagrees with its formulation.
Maybe what they wanted to say is that “Jews ought not to be presented as PARTICULARLY rejected” relatively to other faithless.
Then, Pharisaic connection notwithstanding, it would be reasonable.
But as I see it Nostra Aetate is the first step towards the present “Old Covenant valid” stance, with its normalisation of the Judaic position from the traditional Matthew 27:25 one, as understood by the Church and many, even very early, Church Fathers in the past.
As shown on this silly collection, highlighting passages from them as examples of “anti-semitism” (?).
It truly is an upside down world.
In Chapter 13 of Ezechiel, the false prophets are known for “sewing cushions under elbows”-(-making it easier for people to stay in sin, not exhorting them to change). This incurs God’s greatest wrath, as he declares through his true prophet:
“…and will deliver my people out of your hand, neither shall they be any more in your hands to be a prey: and you shall know that I am the Lord. [22] Because with lies you have made the heart of the just to mourn, whom I have not made sorrowful: and have strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way, and live. [23] Therefore you shall not see vain things, nor divine divinations any more, and I will deliver my people out of your hand: and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
____
adveniat regnum Tuum fiat voluntas Tua
Indignus,
my answer to you is above, as I mistakenly posted it (along with many ortographical errors! I miss an edit fuction for comments. I should proofread them more diligently)
I mixed up again here is the article mentioned at the end of my comment:
http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm
God love you back. Our Lady of the Assumption, pray for us!
Someone needs to tell the authors of this petition, that they left out the text of the Petition !
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/915-stop-the-synod
It would be interesting to see what radical reactionary Catholics who post these kinds of images of the Pope would say when they are before God and are asked if this was appropriate behavior. Despite any actions of the Pope, is this what Christ teaches about how we should treat the Pope and how we should depict him?
Matthew 16:23
Dear Nicole,
We don’t know what your background is, or how well you know the Faith, so we’re giving your holier-than-thou attitude a pass for this time around.
Your labeling as -“radical reactionary” Catholics of many good and holy people who gather here in defense of their children and families and friends who have been driven from the truth by men who have taken on false beliefs for whatever reasons–we do not judge their hearts, is something you will someday stand before God and regret, we sinerely believe.
___
These “images of the Pope are truth. We correct any that are even doubtful by checking and re-checking to be sure quotes are direct and accurate. God won’t be asking questions, such as you propose, He commands us to fulfill these responsibilities through the Church’s Popes and Saints who were faithful to him:
—St. Catherine of Siena
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
—Pope Felix III
“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
—Pope Leo I
“He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error.”
—Pope St. Pius V
“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.”
—Pope St. Pius X
“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.”
—1 Timothy 5:20
“When they sin rebuke them in the presence of all, that the rest also may have fear.”
—Proverbs 17:15
“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God.”
We hope you think this over, and regret your mini-persecution.
p.s. If your comment was only directed to Louie, we can assure you he checks out his facts. Your comment implies you are willing to dismiss what the Pope does-even if it is damaging to souls. That thinking is what got the churchmen into the mess they are in today. Pray for them, but don’t defend their wrongdoing, or demand respect for it.
R.W. I believe the text is there, short & sweet: STOP THE SYNOD.
What do you guys think of Tim Haines’s take on Radical Catholic Reactionarism (from Vericast)?
–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roGOk60dnEQ
–
To answer your question a radical Catholic reactionary is a person who moves close to {at least} material heresy and schism (e.g. the SSPX) and puts themselves outside full communion with the Church. Radical Reactionaries are usually defined as such. A core characteristics of these Rad-Trads is that they think themselves able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. Of course, as you know that is a misplaced opinion. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Catholic faith, in which, as you know there are to be distinguished two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme boss – the Pope.
–
Radical Reactionaries forget that to the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct. On the lay faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to be humble and submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the Bishops (the Shepards) to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
–
Rad Trads commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers. Think about it – if inferiors in the government of the Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.
–
Now folks, let me just say, I’m happy for you to disagree with me, even strongly as a couple of you did, and even aggressively. I’m cool with that. But just so I can respond back to your counter-responses please make sure to point out directly what part of what I am saying you are disagreeing with. It would actually be helpful for you to re-quote me in your response so I know what exactly you are disagreeing with and what I need to respond to and/or defend.
–
pax.
Dear loving Nicole,
have you ever read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
“7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him; Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (….)”
Personally I think that what you regards as “catholic Faith” very well may be just heresy and I am in no way bound to listen to the incessant stream of modernist ungodly filth coming from most of the clergy and even Francis.
l,
Being lifelong regular Novus Ordo participants ( indult Mass attendees when able), we were unfamiliar with these terms. But here’s what the internet has to say about them:
“radical traditionalists””The attitude often comes down to this: “it’s okay for you to be a member of the Catholic Church. That’s fine. But you better not
believe and practise everything the Catholic Church teaches. This is the world these Left-wing elitists want to create, and they’re working very hard to make it happen …to illustrate– using their own words:
——“Traditional Catholics may form the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in America… Radical traditionalists are also unrelated to the many Catholics who call themselves “traditionalist” because they prefer the ancient Latin Mass, though radical traditionalists also prefer their liturgy in Latin…. Other plots abound in radical traditionalist circles, including a “Marxist-Jewish” scheme that is ruining American schools, a “Jewish-homosexual” alliance destroying the priesthood, and a 9/11 conspiracy that maintains the 2001 terrorist attacks were actually “predicted by the Blessed Virgin Mary 84 years ago.”… If radical traditionalists belong to a particular sect – and many do not – it is typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).”…”
SOURCE: Heidi Beirich, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-catholic-radical.html
=====
That explains a lot, although we don’t assume this one group represents all who are against speaking out against falsehoods..
Dear Nicole,
Sede and SSPX are both topics regularly taken to the Forums, as Louie has asked that we stick to the topics at hand, here, and those discussion get lengthy. We don’t speak for either but understand why they exist.
=====
-However the issue of criticism of the Pope is one which applies to this post.
and your cited text states:
“Radical Reactionaries forget that to the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct.”..and later again “Rad Trads commit the serious error of presuming to become judges and teachers”
=======
– Jesus Himself said, “all power on heaven and earth has been given me by My father.” Following the logic in that piece, then, neither the Pope nor anyone else could ever exercise any sort of power, as it all belongs to Jesus. Powers and judgment and authority come from God, and are delegated to man,are all meant to be used for the good of souls. When they are misused, different rules apply. To illustrate:
____
—ISIS’s errors of thought lead them to believe they are acting on Divine authority, while it’s obvious to most of us that they serve the “other” master. To make that judgment you simply compare their behavior to what you know to be right and wrong, quickly seeing that their actions don’t match their claims of doing the what you believe to be God’s will in the treatment of others.
While not equating their stated intentions to those of the Hierarchy,
___
The same is true of our current and recent Pope(s) words and actions and others in the Hierarchy which have been discussed on Louie’s blog. We continue to love and greatly pity any brainwashed, misled or deluded man who had the terrible misfortune to fall prey to the devil’s ideas. The misuse of the passion and other gifts they demonstrate, rendered them harmful .
— We are called by God to hate what He hates, though, in this case- the lies and falsehoods ISIS believe and spread, because of the terrible consequences to their victims (which include both their siblings in crime, proselytes, and those they attack).
___
This shows an easily condemned action by ISIS and the cruelty of which they are capable. (Though un-bloody, it is hard to watch( a prisoner being buried alive standing) yet their victim may be in heaven, while those led away from the Faith are on their way to hell for all eternity. Which is a greater evil?
http://gloria.tv/media/DvFiHFPydKY
===============
Your statement about Louie’s photo implied you are willing to totally dismiss the damage to souls being done by the truth it proclaims, in favor of protecting his image from being tarnished by those same truths being made known.
— That is what is condemned by St. John in his 2nd Epistle, 10-11 when he said not even to open the door of your house to one with another doctrine or wish him Godspeed lest you partake of his sins. .(The editor of Catholic Family news said publicly he wouldn’t let this Pope teach catechism to his children. and rightly so, as a parent’s first duty is to educated their children in the Faith).
and sadly, our Popes ideas are a danger to the faith of everyone. Pray for him certainly, but don’t promote a clean image of him, for the sake of those who will follow him away from the only Church that saves anyone.
Indignus Famulus,
I want to support our dear Nicole’s argument on the sheperd etc. by citing Pastor Aeternus (which is probably what she was referring to as a foundation of her discourse).
“And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, [12] and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, [13] and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. [14] Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema”
Now, I would be careful about recognizing Francis’ validity and at the same time denying his status as supreme judge of the faith.
In my view, they are either valid or invalid Pontiffs (per Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio & Canon 188 Codex Iuris Canonici 1917). If you adhere to the former position, it is not allowed to disagree on their judgements and teaching of the Faith.
Vice versa, all their actions are invalid and they are to be avoided “as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs”.
Although our beloved Nicole is wrong, in my opinion, to threaten “RadTrads” whatever that means, with “material heresy”. In fact their position, if we are to assume the Vatican II pontiff’s are legitimate and, as it would seem, the teachings thereof are doctrinal (ad absurdum), would be of FORMAL heresy, as they publicly deny “Catholic” doctrine.
Of course this is only true in a upside down reality such as ours, where Black is White depending on convenience, and DoubleThink seems to be the norm.
Hope this helps shedding some light on the issue,
Thank you both.
@Bert Schlomowitz – you have not said what you disagreed with regarding my post? Perhaps quote the part you think is in error. All you did was quote a document, so Im not sure what part of my comment you think is heresy or in error.
–
@Indignus famulus – I am being relevant to the post if you see my initial comments which were directly about the image posted by Mr. Verrecchio. Flowing from my comments some people asked me to clarify what the definition of a Radical Catholic Reactionary is which is why I did that. That however was again related to my initial post which was commenting on the imaged posted by Mr. V. We did not discuss the nature of the SSPX schism, and Sedevacantism was not even mentioned at all. The SSPX was just mentioned insofar as it related to Radical Catholic Reactionarism which I was asked by another person to clarify what that meant. I think Mr. V would thus certainly view that this conversation is well within the ambit of this particular post. I don’t think he expects folks to be scrupulous in policing his comment boxes.
–
@Indignus – You have my respect and admiration sir for actually pointing out specifically which part of my comments you disagreed with. It makes it now easy for me to engage with you in a discussion and offer a counter-refutation of your disagreements with me. Cheers for that. I will proceed to answer your issues with my comments which you have directly identified, however before I do I just want others to clarify their disagreements like you did. I do not want to refute them and be accused to answering a straw man and unless they specifically point out what they take issue with like you did Im not able to defend why I find the posting of this image as shocking, scandalous, uncatholic and even sinful. {although note I am not imputing any culpability onto the poster of this image or judging them – I am referring to the objective posting of said image}.
–
@Bert Schlomowitz – I’m not clear and what comments of mine you are calling into question or error. If you could please quote the specific comments of mine you consider to be incorrect as Indignus famulus did, this will then help me to firstly see where you think I am wrong and then allow me to defend myself. From your “dear” and “loving” Nic as you call me. {Totally feeling the well renowned humility and charity of self-professed Traditionalists lol. On a side note you may want to check out the comments of folks like Christopher Ferrara and Fr. Chad Ripperger who are Traditionalists who have spoken out harshly and often about how Traditionalists only alienate, sin and hurt their own cause by being rude and prideful. These men have my admiration for honestly being able to identify such a lack of virtue in their own movement.}
Dear Bert,
If you thought we were declaring the Pope not in charge of the Church, then we must have done a bad job of stating what we were trying to say. Sorry. We’re not questioning his authority at all. We’re just saying we don’t see what his being in charge has to do with someone like Louie or a blogposter, stating what the Pope has admitted he is actually saying, and comparing it to dogma to show that it directly contradicts it? The mandate of Christ was go and teach and Baptize. The Pope said No to that, on numerous occasions and stated he had no desire to convert people on various occasions, and told at least two people who wanted to convert, not to, which was also made public. These are known facts, which can harm souls. Where is the prohibition against stating those truths? Is there one in what you just said? Thanks for your input.
Dear Nicole,
Since Bert apparently got a misimpression from what we said to you, we thought we’d try to clarify the point which seemed to be mistaken–our fault for poorly stating it. We are not questioning the authority of the Pope. We are questioning the idea that you seem to be suggesting, that due to his authority, there is some prohibition on speaking or writing the truth with accuracy, in a way that juxtaposes what the Church has always taught with something actually said by him and verified numerous times but which is in direct contradiction to it. Catholics with rightly formed consciences have a duty to speak out against error, wherever it is presented. Are you denying that?
p.s. We’re a Catholic married couple which is why you see “we” .
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That makes sense now. Is Bert a Sede?
–
Can you identify which part of my comments specifically he calls into question? Quote specifically which part of my comments he disagrees with? Also if you disagreed with any other comments I make, again can you re-quote back to me which ones they were so I can proceed to defend them? Cheers.
Dear Nicole,
Just so we’re a bit more on the same page here, are you aware that Pope Francis is leading the charge to allow Mortal sinners to remain in mortal sin and receive the Eucharist at will? And are you aware that he publicly stated he has no interest in making converts of the Protestant Evangelicals, and that he has advised several not to convert when they requested it? And do you know that he has claimed the Jews has gone along with Benedict’s “writing only as a theologian” while Pope, stating that we don’t evangelize the Jews, believing they have an unbroken Covenant? (which is directly opposed to Church teaching for 2000 years?. We’re not being sarcastic, we just want to know how aware you are of these things, personally. We can verify all of them.
Dear Nicole,
You may have some impression that this is a tightly knit kind of social group or something, while it’s more of an ongoing conversation. Some are more regular than others, but people come and go here, depending on what Louie writes that motivates them., and sometimes they give info about who they are or what they believe, other times no one has a clue. We generally only give our own opinions and don’t speak for others, so you’ll have to ask Bert your questions about his beliefs.
___
Generally we can tell you that we have experienced for the most part a lot of sincerely passionate, prayerful, Catholics who have gone through tough times in the Church, love her, Love Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother, and would really love to see things restored to order. Most seem drawn to Louie’s posts out of years of frustration with seeing the Faith distorted by both high-level hierarchy and local prelates, family and friends falling away from the Faith, etc. and the fact that he allows them to post whether they are sede or SSPX or FSSP or like us, just in Love with God and grateful for how the Church has helped us strive to become holier over the years, glad we discovered the encyclicals and older books and writing of the Saints and Fathers, and Fatima and the Rosary and old practices and especially the TLM which we thought we’d hate and instead fell madly in love with.
That’s likely more than what you wondered, but it’s a bit of where we’re coming from.
Can you please show me a primary sourced document or video in the words of Pope Francis himself, that is not a secondary representation (which as you know amounts to hearsay where he:
–
(1) “publicly stated he has no interest in making converts of the Protestant Evangelicals”; and
–
(2) advises people not to convert when they specifically request it?
–
I’ll make sure to consider such evidence when you present it. I know from my own personal experience as a senior lecturer in dogmatic theology how often people have misrepresented my writings or claimed I said things I never said, even faculty close to me. Hence, I am not interested in a he said – she said, type of pop journalism. I’m not interested in reports of journalists saying it is reported the Pope said to this person at that time. To make such an accusation at the Vicar of Christ I would like to see it from the Pope himself either by video or written document from him. Not someone claiming he told them that.
–
He never said the Jews have a covenant which saves them. He said the Abrahamic covenant to them in terms of God’s promises to Abraham was not revoked and he quoted Romans 11 to support himself. Why put your exegesis above the Popes? Do you know that in dogmatic theology there are things which *appear* to contradict what is being taught, even by Popes and yes, many times before Vatican II. But orthodox dogmatic theologians know that mere appearance of contradiction is not actual contradiction. Just because sometimes looks like that at first instance does not make it so. Do you know that in the realm of moral theology, heretics claim the Church (prior to Vat II I might add) reversed its teachings on the teaching of usury? Again it was an apparent contradiction in that it may have looked at such to the independent and individual eye, but the Church has explanations for all these things as to why they are not actual contradictions although it may appear to be such. This includes the Jewish coventant. In the same document Francis clearly says the Church cannot stop proclaiming Christ as the messiah. The understanding is that Christ is the perfect fulfilment to the convenient and the messiah of all, including the Jews, but God who is faithful does not now say the Jews are no longer the people of God for that would be contradicting his eternal promise which he cannot do – we are not Muslims who believe in the abrogation theory. So Francis is merely saying that, not that the Jews have their own covenant which saves them and we have ours which saves us. Christ is the saviour of all. Why impute your personal theological views onto the Magisterium who has allows this certain degree of freedom on this issue. The issue which is not up for grabs which Francis has states many times is that we are saved by Christ alone, even the Jews and that there is only one convent which saves, that is the Covenant of Jesus.
–
Do you believe everything written about the Pope? Would you like if people believed everything they heard *others* say about you? How do you think Christ would feel about your quick judgment of the HOly Father based on what others have said about him and not his own words?
Indignus thats all fine, and I appreciate you tell me these things, but can you please get Bert and even yourself to go back to my original post where I asked you to identify what you disagreed with and re-quote my comments so I can see what you disagreed with. Im referring to my post about individuals judging the shepherds.
Hi Nicole, Bert & IF, Just looking to add my penny’s worth.
Nic- back on 17, you inferred that Louie’s a radical reactionary, I guess, based solely on the picture. Louie ain’t no R.R. as far as I’ve gleaned from his postings. Of course, that’s from my understanding of terms. That’s why throwing labels around to define groups gets problematic. How far back does an R.R. go? Pre-N.O.? How about before the 1962 changes? Pius XII added his touches. How about St. Pius X? Etcetera, etc. You then responded that an R.R. is usually defined as one “who moves close to … material heresy and schism … and puts themselves outside full communion with the Church.” So, just moving “close to” puts one “outside”? So, if you’re not a heretic or schismatic, (or apostate), you could still be considered outside the Church? That sounds a little harsh. (But then we’re dealing with how “they” define the term.)
—
You then discuss Rad-Trads as if the term is identical to R.R. So it seems you’re equating Reactionary with Traditional. Must be a good thing since in link you gave, Tim Haines equated Traditional and Catholic. (He just wants everybody to stop using Traditional because he thinks it gives a bad connotation, I guess.) So, to run with it, it seems you want the Radical Catholics to stop examining and judging the acts of authority. I’m sorry, since VII we’ve been hearing so much about how we’re adults and should follow our conscience, does that not require making judgments? (Of course us Catholics have had to drag “rightly formed” out of those that should be teaching.)
Nicole,
I’m not disagreeing with you, I quote Matthew 16:23 as response to the following:
” is this what Christ teaches about how we should treat the Pope and how we should depict him?”
It would seem Christ was not shy in admonishing the pope.
Also I’m not sure who treated you rudely and offensively as you keep on claiming?
You seem to be one of those novus ordites who are fine with everything as long as it doesn’t include “strong” or “direct” language.
The evidence is shown above and in other comments, where you engage with Indignus Famulus (the one probably most distant from your position of total embrace of V-II Church probably) yet you complain about others like me or salvemur who agree with you because or our language?
It would seem you guys have picked up a trick or two from Francis’ buddies the Jews about victimism as a weapon of discourse.
It would also seem you are one of those “total denial” types, regarding statements from VII pontiffs.
How about the following quote:
Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “(….) but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”
Are you denying the future Benedict XVI here means that Jews are saved IN VIRTUE of their Talmudic Rites (the very notion explicitly condemned in Cantate Domino)?
Do you even believe holding such a view would have any consequence regarding the status of a Pontiff or… why else are you asking for proof of Francis ever saying similar things?
What does the following passage in Evangelii Gaudium mean?
“254. Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,[199] and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”.[200] But due to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace, God’s working in them tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn bring others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God.[201] While these lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ, they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences. The same Spirit everywhere brings forth various forms of practical wisdom which help people to bear suffering and to live in greater peace and harmony. As Christians, we can also benefit from these treasures built up over many centuries, which can help us better to live our own beliefs. ”
Is not Francis here explicitly stating the Holy Ghost is at work in non Catholic (maybe even non christian) religions?
Is that sound doctrine?
What does Francis mean when he says in “On Heaven and Earth” the following:
“The Church officialy recognizes that the people of Israel continue to be the Chosen People”?
So Francis’ best friend Skorka is lieing when reporting Francis said to him time and time again “The Catholic Church cannot engage in Proselythism” versus the Talmudic Jews?
Is it ok for him to actively engage in Talmudic rites and actively favour the practice by providing Kosher food and Churches for them?
Thank you.
Ps-Indignus, I will respond to you later today, thanks
Dear Nicole,
I find it best to check just how far out the Vatican II church is, in regards to the Protestant heresy, to look at Benedict XVI, and not Francis.
You can Google many of his outrageous statements disseminated in all his books (which are many) or simply watch videos on Youtube about it, complete photographical proof ot the veridicity of the text presented.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
but, to put it bluntly, assuming they are valid Popes, it should follow that THEIR intepretation and guidance is the correct one, at least as a working principle.
By contradicting their personal leadership in the matter of faith and morals, are you not doing what Nicole accuses RadTrats (or whomever) to do?
And contradicting Pastor Aeternus? You simply cannot revere and submit to a merely theoretical notion of the Pope, ignoring the actual, present occupant of the Chair of Saint Peter.
Given that the following quote from St. Bellarmine:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. ”
(De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29)
apparently does not deal of a situation similar to ours, as seen here:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10
Where do you find and how do you justify the belief that a erring Pope could be resisted and ignored?
For as we read in Mystici Corporis Christi:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (…)As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
As I said before, in my opinion if the occupants of the Vatican are indeed true Popes, they cannot be disobeyed.
But as we can see above, one has to “profess the true faith” in order to be a member of the Body, ergo the Church. And obviously someone outside the Body cannot be its Head.
Do the latest Vatican II pontiffs PROFESS the TRUE faith?
Dear Bert first, quoting your quote and comment:
“…souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. ”
(De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29)
apparently does not deal of a situation similar to ours
As I said before, in my opinion if the occupants of the Vatican are indeed true Popes, they cannot be disobeyed.”
Dear Bert. The first quote does apply. We are not judging the Pope as a heretic, we are not deposing him, and we are not punishing him.
All Catholics have an obligation to speak and spread truth and to oppose evil and falsehood, no matter who is speaking it. Oppose the Falsehood, does not require us to take direct action to punish, etc.
You take it to the next level, assuming you cannot do those ordinary acts required of every man, by ignoring the actual words you quoted, and calling speaking of truth “disobedience”. Don’t change the words to apparently win an argument. Go by their true and intended meanings.
When a Saint says not to speak the truth anymore, unlike St. Catherine who said let 100,000 tongues cry out, then you can talk about other alternatives.
___
What we privately think this Pope is doing doesn’t matter as much as what effect his words have on souls when he contradicts dogma and the mandate of Christ. IF he proposes reception of Communion without sanctifying Grace, there is no way to justify it. He has not promulgated that, and it is wise to wait and see what happens, preparing by studying Church teachings.
___
You seem to be urging others to join you in declaring him non Catholic. We believe God is going to take action to fulfill the Fatima prophecy, and pray it will be in providing more Graces for conversion wherever necessary, including at the top, so the Consecration of Russia gets done, and there is no need for any declaration about the Pope, other than that he is in perfect harmony with the past and present truth, safeguarded by Christ Himself with His promised Presence till the end, and by the truths themselves which withstand the test of time and apostates. We wait and live in that hope that things will change soon.
But as we can see above, one has to “profess the true faith” in order to be a member of the Body, ergo the Church. And obviously someone outside the Body cannot be its Head.
Where do you find and how do you justify the belief that a erring Pope could be resisted and ignored?”
For as we read in Mystici Corporis Christi:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (…)As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Sorry, the rest of your quote printed at the end of our post,
THOSE LAST TWO PARAGRAPS AREN NOT OUR WORDS
“But as we can see, one has to be….
Nicole,
could you please quote where Francis explicitly talked about “Abrahamic” Covenant?
Because big chief Cardinal Walter Kasper regarding the MOSAIC COVENANT said the following: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”
Thank you.
ear Nicole,
—If you set aside the strong-arm-mode inherent in your statements, including threats of Divine judgment for publicly denouncing false teachings, you’ll contribute without engendering antagonism in return, and find us,(and we think, some others)s receptive to truth-whether it agrees with our opinions, or not.
— Trust of the Hierarchy was all but totally destroyed in the last half century, by their own actions, outrageous abuses of authority and betrayal of the faithful, including many of our own loved ones- directly, and indirectly; while the press you denounce as if unable to provide any reliable, verifiable, evidence or truth, when used with due dilligence, has proven far more valuable in that regard than our Church reps.- sad to say. We’ve seen bishops confess publicly that they lied to the press to cover up their cover ups, and what we’ve experienced personally could fill more than one book. Exceptions are on both sides, but our Popes have let us down for so long, without any possible great public outcry, that efforts like Louie’s may come too little too late, but come they must and should. The hierarchy still have authority and power, but have to re-earn trust, which they are further destroying right now, instead. The time for blind obedience to their every whim, is over.
___
So many theologians have contributedto this destruction, that, although you may sincerely feel compelled to protect the Popes from reactionary abuses, your claimed credentials are more a badge of dishonor these days. Your rejection of main news sources as hearsay, leaves the public back where it was 50 years ago, relying on rarely produced written statements, and video evidence. That adds to the negative perception you bring, of a liberal out to defend the indefensible, by eliminating all the valid proof of their crimes.Parents and grandparents like us aren’t buying into that while corruption continues to spread and the Church we love is attacked. Cardinals turn to the press-as Caffara recently did to express his worries publicly about the October Synod and Kasper’s proposed “period of penance” which is then to be followed by allowing people living in sin to receive the Eucharist regularly- while remaining in that sinful state. His desperation to have the truth heard above the Popes’ praise of it as “serene theology done on the knees” is evident. The Cardinal obviously expected that news and his testimony to be accepted as truth by the Faithful.
____
In the link provided below, Jimmy Akin does a fair job of presenting both sides of the Jewish evangelizing issue, defending the possibilites of things Benedict could have meant, but also pointing out that ” this is precisely the kind of exegetical point on which he indicated people are free to contradict him. “How much did the salvation motive play a role in first century evangelization according to the New Testament?” is an exegetical question, not a dogmatic one.
___
Your response to the Jewish question, did not include our main reference- to Benedict’s writing (as a theologian, not as Pope) in his book,Jesus of Nazareth: stating: —“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” (Christians should) “wait for the time fixed for this by God”
— ““the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews”. Which came after he emphasized the idea that the “hardening” which God let fall upon them till after the “time of the Gentiles”.
“Akin presents the possibility that Benedict only meant less emphasis and argues,”But there are only a few million Jews in the world, and there are over a billion Catholics. We’re not going to save that much of our evangelistic energy by adopting a limited evangelization policy for the Jewish people.There is also something repugnant about the idea of hindering Christ’s own people, as a matter of policy, from learning about him. Certainly this was contrary to St. Paul’s practice, which was to preach to the Jewish community first and then to the gentiles.”
http://jimmyakin.com/2011/03/pope-dont-evangelize-jews-really.html
___
Dear Nicole, Continuiing:
The Pope’s “private” 3-hour luncheon with Evangelicals, produced very credible reports from those attending, just after they left.
—-In this video one attending Evangelical couple rejoice in sharing the news with their friends:
— John Arnott:”the Pope said “”I’m really not expecting any of you to join the Catholic Church, please understand, that’s not what this is about.” “What we’re talking about is a unified positions to go before the world and say, We’re proclaiming Christ as the only hope of salvation.” http://revivalmag.com/article/meeting-pope-francis
___
—-And the article, written by another attendee Brian Stiller, we found most often quoted by normally reliable people, including priests loyal to the Pope who blog: http://dispatchesfrombrian.com/2014/07/09/lunch-with-the-pope/
— “I know some will wonder if we lack discernment, dining as we did with the head of a church many see as heretical. I’m clear in the importance of the Reformation… No one is interested in rewinding the clock. Also to construct a united church isn’t doable and neither is it in our interest. … Chistians, one-half are linked to the Vatican. Conferencing with Rome no more compromises our doctrinal commitments than it would by meeting with the heads of other religions..
—” what kind of Catholic Church we as Evangelicals want to see. At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question and his comment was, “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 be about showing the love of Jesus.” …We spoke about how in our diversity we might find unity and strength. Borrowing from Swiss Protestant theologian Oscar Cullman, we reflected how “reconciled diversity” allows us to stand within our own understandings of how Christ effects salvation.”
This is good evidence to us and many others of a continuing string of proofs.
Caserta is another example. Where the distortion of “unity in diversity: is taken to mean unity without return, and Jesus’ statement that He came to bring a sword of division is in the dust heap, in favor of Tony Palmer’s “Unity is divine Diversity is Diabolical” The Pope repeats those sentiments as coming from an Evangelical that he loves very much. Tony Palmer had just been killed July 20, in a head on collision while riding his motorcycle . The local Bishop says the Pope ordered him to bury Palmer as a Bishop from the Church of St. John the Evangelist in Bath, England. TonyPalmer stated publicly just a few months before his death, The Holy Spirit is uniting us without doctrines or traditions of men”.
Indignus Famulus,
but St. Bellarmine quote doesn’t refer to any lay catholic, but specific people as the link I posted illustrates, and does not refer to a doctrinally deficient pope, but merely an amoral one.
In fact Bellarmine treats the specifics of an hypothetical heretic being elected as Pope, I’m sure you’re aware of this.
Moreover I’m not trying to convince or convert anyone, because I’m not even sure of being right (even though the Sedevacantist arguments seems more convincing by the day) and a Sedevacantist existence is indeed a terrible and miserable one, merely pointing out that as far as I know, while there are no doctrinal arguments for disobedience, except that quote (and maybe a few others? I’m not sure) taken out of context, there is ample evidence and dispositions regarding rejecting a claimant “in toto” due to heresy et alia.
God bless.
Ps: Thank you for the clarification on the last passage/re-quoting, as it was puzzling.
Indignus Famulus,
while researching documents today I stumbled upon this article:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/comedy-hour-with-john-salza.htm
While I DO NOT endorse the tone, language, and conclusions expressed by the authors, in the slightest, I cannot help but think it is insightful and contains various precious snippets and passages from the Magisterium on the matter we were just discussing.
Hope it helps,
Bert.
Dear Bert,
Thanks for the clarification and links, and your patience with us.
We were in a rush, trying to respond to several posts at once, and didn’t view the link you put in, before answering. Obviously not addressing your point. Sorry. We’ll read both of these and get back to you. We do agree it is getting very confusing. We’ll have to investigate your point about objecting to sin versus objecting to doctrinal deficiency.
___
We are thinking of exploring it all from this angle: It’s not we who oppose those doctrinal deficiencies, as much as prior popes who spoke dogmatically and our consciences which were rightly formed by them, which must, in the end determine our thoughts and actions about what is right for each situation.
But we’ll check out your links to see if they preclude or contradict that idea..
With all due respect to the Cardinal, he is wrong. All orthodox theology manuals which discuss covenental theology make it clear that only Christ saves.
–
Regarding Pope Benedict, may I ask, what do you know of what St. Augustine said about the difference of formal heretics and the ‘children’ or generations or descendents of heretics and if you consider St. Augustine himself to be a heretic?
I find it interesting that no one could actually point out specifically what I said that was wrong. I challenge anyone to quote back to me any part of my comments that you think are in error. I think the silence on this matter is revealing.
“For you will certainly carry out God’s purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John.”
C.S. Lewis
Nicole,
How could you? I thought “to the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct.” Yet you say the Cardinal’s wrong? I read nothing of shepherdess. St. JP2, ex cathedra, said women can’t be priests, (ergo bishop). Are you really a Nicholas? Or, are we allowed to judge/correct Cardinals?
oh no, did you just quote the “heretic” C.S Lewis who was not Catholic and thus is now burning in hell fire. Really should we listen to anything heretics have to say. They are Judas and leading the fight for Satan….
Mike,
I am outraged and offended by Nicole’s statement on our beloved Cardinal Walter Kasper.
She clearly lacks charity, and think herself able to take some part in the government of the Church, or at least, think she is allowed to examine and judge after her own fashion the acts of authority.
This greatly hurts the unity of the Church.
Dear Nicole, –the don’t convert info you requested:
“Many are asking me what Jorge Bergoglio is really like. He is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. I have been with him on many occasions and he always makes me sit next to him and invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done. He is consistently humble and wise, outstandingly gifted yet a common man.
He is no fool and speaks out very quietly yet clearly when necessary. He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate [creating by the Catholic Church to accommodate alienated Anglicans] was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans. I consider this to be an inspired appointment not because he is a close and personal friend but because of who he is In Christ.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/church-universal-needs-anglicans-pope-francis
____
Qui legit intellegat!
Nicole: here’s s the link to the Tony Palmer video posted on Louie’s July Tony Palmer blog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHbEWw7l_Ek
We are witnessing the Unity of Christians by the Spirit of God, and NOT by the doctrines and traditions of men”.
__He was needed as a “bridge” Bergoglio, his spiritual Father told him not to convert he reiterates that in another place someone posted a while ago.
Final do not convert (Ratzinger)
The information comes from the Vatican Radio article (in German) on Sigrid Spath:Sigrid Spath was the most famous German translator in Rome. She worked in the Jesuit General House, and then in the Vatican, since the
days of Paul VI and translated around 70,000 pages of documents The granddaughter of a Lutheran pastor, Spath was born in Villach,
___
Carinthia (Austria), on August 1, 1939 (that is, just one month before the war), and she died this Sunday, February 2, 2014, in Rome.
—One of her favorite books was Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity”,
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who, according to her own testimony, advised Sigrid Spath to remain a Protestant, and not to convert to the Catholic Church, as she had considered in a moment of crisis. She could do more for both churches if she remained a Protestant, said the Cardinal. The Carinthian remained in the Protestant Christuskirche in Rome [the Evangelical-Lutheran community of Rome] throughout her life.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/she-wanted-to-convert-but-she-listened.html
======
The article notes that it is not advisable to make life changing decisions in moments of crises, but the reasons given by Ratzinger are what cause concern here.
Dear Nicole, . First hand quotes for proof (as you request) .
—Your words par. #26:
“I find it interesting that no one could actually point out specifically what I said that was wrong. I challenge anyone to quote back to me any part of my comments that you think are in error. I think the silence on this matter is revealing.”
—Your words from par. # 21 above:
@Indignus – You have my respect and admiration sir for actually pointing out specifically which part of my comments you disagreed with. It makes it now easy for me to engage with you in a discussion and offer a counter-refutation of your disagreements with me. Cheers for that. I will proceed to answer your issues with my comments which you have directly identified….I just want others to clarify their disagreements like you did.
======
Nicole: #24 2nd Par. above:
“Can you please show me a primary sourced document or video in the words of Pope Francis himself, that is not a secondary representation (which as you know amounts to hearsay)”
_____
Bert Schlomowitz August 16, 2014 4:14 pm Reply
Nicole, … big chief Cardinal Walter Kasper regarding the MOSAIC COVENANT said the following: “… the old theory of substitution….is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” .
—Your response (Nicole August 16, 2014 7:22 pm Reply)
“With all due respect to the Cardinal, he is wrong. All orthodox theology manuals which discuss covenantal theology make it clear that only Christ saves”.
=====
You didn’t even ask Bert where he got that quote, and proceeded immediately to make a serious judgment against Cardinal Kasper based on what, according you above, is just “hearsay”, and using unspecified theology manuals as your proof.
======
You’re Busted.
Dear Indignus Famulus, I marvel at your patience with such speciousness. God bless your work for Him, for His Church, for the truth.
Nicole when you have time please post clarifications on Francis statements on the Jews and specifically about him meaning the Abrahamic Covenant and not Mosaic.
It is of the utmost importance, especially since Fr. Kramer embraced the Sede Vacante position over them, so if indeed Bergoglio didn’t at all mean what he said about Jews still being the Chosen (ignoring modern day Talmudic Jews do not even follow Judaism but Pharisaic Talmudism) and the “Covenant” still being valid, we could just contact him and no doubt he would promptly abjure his error…
Dear Lynda,
We sure we feel the same degree of frustration as others, but we try to stop and pray, and picture the person frustrating us as if they were suddenly free of the blindness which causes them to act blindly or deceitfully or pridefully or whatever the problems are. Then we try to write back to that person, with the hope that our words will help bring them more into that light.
Thank you for your encouraging words, though, too. We had just finished a post to Nicole (see # 35-36 on the Deficient Churchmen blog) and were thinking it was too long to post. We happened to see your comment and thought-what the heck it’s for a good cause…so thanks again 🙂
Dear Nicole,
We haven’t yet figured out what you meant by writing, “can you please get Bert to….”
Why would we have any more influence over his actions than you do, and why should we try to influence someone to do your bidding, when we don’t like your attitude and think your ideas are wrong, so far.
Bravo! I can almost see St. Michael smiling and patting your back!
I have tried to be charitable about this awful Bergoglio but I keep going back to something I read recently – ” If Bergoglio was taken to court accused of being a Catholic – he’d be acquitted!”
May God and His Blessed Mother guard, guide and protect you and all here.