On Sept 24th this year, an event took place which is unprecedented in Church history. A sitting pope has been accused of teaching heresy as part of his authentic magisterium in a "Filial Correction" signed by some 60 Catholic theologians, priests and bishops - which has subsequently risen to 146 as of the time of writing. This accusation has been railed against an Apostolic Exhortation no less - a document which is part of the papal magisterium. This accusation of heresy leaked out on the exact day that the much vaunted Rev 12 sign appeared in the skies on the centenary year of Our Lady of Fatima, 33 days after the occurrence of the Great American Solar Eclipse, which marked the start of a forty day countdown to Yom Kippur, coinciding with St. Michael's Lent.
While the importance of this event has been overlooked or downplayed by many, if this course of action is allowed to be played out till the end of its intended path, it will no doubt be looked back upon as one of the most pivotal moments in the history of the modern Catholic Church. This is only the first stage in a multi-step process involving an audacious attempt to depose Pope Francis from the Holy See either through the convocation of an "imperfect council" (a general Church council without the pope as its head), or through some other alternative ad-hoc process which will ultimately result in a major schism in the Catholic Church. Given the incessant grumblings against Pope Francis since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, there has been much speculation of late across in some extreme elements of the Traditionalist movement about how a pope who teaches formal heresy as part of his papal magisterium would automatically excommunicate himself, leaving the Holy See sede vacante. Indeed, there have even been several conferences conducted on the theme of "how to remove an heretical pope" such as that at Paris in 2017 titled "Deposing the Pope: Theological Premises, Canonical Models, Constitutional Challenges," inspired by the recently published book by Laurent Fonbaustier. and several discussions have taken place online as to what this process would involve (see Robert J. Siscoe in The Remnant here).
During the Counter Reformation, there was some hypothetical scenarios discussed between several influential theologians, such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, and Cajetan, about what would happen if a reigning pope were ever to teach formal heresy, and what the process would be in removing said pope from the Holy See. However, there was never any consensus reached on this topic, and there was never any canonical procedure developed for such a process. In light of the development of later Catholic theology on the nature of the papal charism concerning the protection of the pope from error in his ordinary non-infallible magisterium and the dogma of papal infallibility in the extraordinary and universal magisterium, it was considered non-essential, since the modern Catholic Church teaches that no pope can ever teach formal heresy as part of his magisterium.
In light of the upset that has been caused since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, which allows some divorced and remarried couples who are not able to obtain an annulment access to the Sacraments through the internal forum solution, some extreme Traditionalists are now convinced that Pope Francis is teaching outright heresy, and are now taking concrete steps to remove the Holy Father from the Peterine Office, by harking back to these hypothetical paradigms discussed by St. Bellarmine, Suárez, Cajetan et al. In light of Pope Francis' refusal to answer a series of dubia forwarded by Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke promised that there would be a forthcoming "fraternal correction" of Amoris Laetitia. A promise which appears to be intimately related to this recent Filial Correction.
It seems however that Cardinal Burke is biding his time for the next step in this process, and will use the full weight of his authority when he issues his own "Fraternal Correction". The end-game in this audacious initiative behind the Filial Correction appears to be in openly proclaiming that Pope Francis is a manifest and obdurate heretic and declare that he has incurred automatic excommunication, leaving the Holy See sede vacante. It seems likely that this group will then petition for as many dissenting cardinals and bishops as possible to join them, lobbying for a new conclave to be established to install an antipope in opposition to Pope Francis, inaugurating a full-scale schism within the Catholic Church, the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the Western Schism in 1417.
What we have witnessed here is the pawns being moved into place, reserving the key pieces for the next step in the process, which is to issue a "fraternal correction", leading to a declaration that Pope Francis a formal heretic, which could be form anywhere to six months to a year from now. While the Filial Correction appears to accuse Pope Francis of only espousing or promoting material heresy, such a position simply does not hold, when we consider the fact that Amoris Laetitia is part of the papal magisterium. Those who have promoted this Filial Correction have harked back to the correction of Pope John XXII. No such comparison can be made here though, in the fact that Pope John XXII only held to his heretical belief on the resurrection in a private capacity, and never attempted to formally teach this in his magisterium. This charge of heresy in Amoris Laetitia, however thinly veiled, is nothing short than an accusation of formal heresy, and the subsequent "removal" of Pope Francis from the Holy See is no doubt the next course of action in this collaborative effort.
As Robert J. Siscoe states:
We have seen that a canonical warning is required for a cleric to lose his office due to the crime of heresy. This aspect of canon law is derived from divine law, which teaches that a heretic should only be avoided, “after one or two warnings” (Titus 3:10). Since this precept of divine law does not permit of an exception, it applies equally to a heretical Pope. If a Pope were to remain hardened in heresy after being duly warning by the proper authorities, he would thereby manifest his pertinacity, and reveal that, of his own will, he had rejected the Faith.
It is simply remarkable that this Filial Correction was timed to exactly coincide with the feast day of St. Padre Pio during the course of St. Michael's Lent, when St. Francis of Assisi was physically impressed with the visible wounds of the stigmata, marking him out as the "angel of the sixth seal". Is this act of stigmatization the final confirmation that Pope Francis is indeed the Worthy Shepherd who has taken great lengths to feed his flock during this period of trial for the Church?
One from beyond the mountains shall become the Vicar Of God. Religious and clerics shall take part in this change. Outside the true path, there will be only disreputable men; I shrug my shoulders when the Bark of Peter is in danger and there is no one to lend it help... The schismatic shall fall into the scorn of the Italian faithful... By about twelve years shall the millennium have passed when the resplendent mantle of legitimate power shall emerge from the shadows where it was being kept by the schism. And beyond harm from the one who is blocking the door of salvation, for his deceitful schism shall have come to an end. And the mass of the faithful shall attach itself to the worthy Shepherd, who shall extricate each one from error and restore to the Church its beauty. He shall renew it."
(Miscellanea Francescana 1 p173)
Just as St. Padre Pio offered himself up as a victim for the end of the First World War, we can only hope and pray that Pope Francis will offer up this act of stigmatization as a means to save the world from its current threat of chastisement, just as the North Korean nuclear crisis now reaches its crescendo. This act of stigmatization is surely the Dragon standing under the Woman's feet intent on consuming the "male-child" just as he is born, by issuing a flood from its mouth to sweep the Woman away.
It is time to remain positive though, and hope that perhaps something good will come from all this mess we see in the Church today. Perhaps Cardinal Burke's true motivation is to pressurize the Holy Father into convoking an ecumenical council, in order to ensure that this matter is resolved through the infallible magisterium, sum Petro et Sub Petro. Perhaps such a council would be able to undo the great source of division that has entered the Church since the "Spirit of Vatican II" ensured the stripping of the altars and liturgical changes under Bugnini's reforms, by ensuring the full implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium - the conciliar document on the Sacred Liturgy. Perhaps then we will finally see the filthy garments of the Church finally being removed, and replaced by those worthy of the Bride of the Lamb, as is indicated in the below prophecy of Zechariah, which takes place at the end of the period of Satan's greater power:
Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” And to him he said, “See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. (Zech 3:1-5)
174 comments:
What was the correction of Pope John XXII? I'm not familiar with it.
Emmet, is the Cajetan you are referring to the sainted co-founder of the Theatines (Gaetano dei Conti di Thiene) or the unsainted (though very learned and pious) Cardinal Thomas Cajetan? I've heard of Cardinal Cajetan's part in these discussions but not St. Cajetan.
You say: "In light of the development of later Catholic theology on the nature of the papal charism concerning the protection of the pope from error in his ordinary non-infallible magisterium and the dogma of papal infallibility in the extraordinary and universal magisterium."
This is not Catholic teaching. Infallible means protected from error. There is not non-infallible teaching that is protected from error. Someone has confused the ordinary universal magisterium, which is infallible, with the pope's ordinary non-universal magisterium, which is his pastoral teaching, to which we owe respect but not assent of faith.
The ordinary universal magisterium is what the Church has everywhere and always taught.
Pope Francis may or may not be "the worthy shepherd" (and I highly doubt it) but you are losing credibility, Emmett, when you claim in an earlier post that Hitler was the False Prophet. If anything, Hitler was a type of the Antichrist, not the False Prophet. The Church fathers are clear that Simon Magus is the archetype for the False Prophet. The False Prophet is not a military leader like Hitler. Can't believe you would make such a fundamental error in this regard, Emmett. But even the best make mistakes sometimes I guess.
To add to that, the extraordinary universal magisterium is the Pope alone, under certain very defined conditions, and the Pope and bishops together in a Council. AL is neither of these, nor is it ordinary universal.
I admire your work Emmett. I don't agree with you on this particular issue though. Just to take your statement that an AE is one of the highest magisterial documents that's not true. In the ordering of documents published by the AAS an AE is mid rank at best. Secondly, no matter what generic ranking a document has the actual force of any particular teaching within it depends on how it is being put forward, the words used etc as Lumen Gentium specifies. Francis does not impose any of the passages that are problematic.
That said, I do agree this particular correction is over the top especially in ranking various statements as heretical. Some are probably more erroneous (IF taken in a certain way). The whole problem is the ambiguity. They lend themselves to a heterodox reading in various places and it is irresponsible for such confusion not to be cleared up.
This is not entirely accurate either "there has been much speculation of late across the Traditionalist spectrum about how a pope who teaches formal heresy as part of his papal magisterium."
The speculation regards a Pope proclaiming a heresy in any forum whether it be magisterial or not. It could be a book or an interview etc. Of course, what is impossible is that it could be imposed under the conditions required for an ex cathedra statement since such statements cannot be erroneous by definition
Also, sorry to be so critical as I don't often comment here but don't confuse St. Cajetan with Cardinal Cajetan the theologian. They are two different people who lived around the same time.
Are there legitimate concerns surrounding the resignation of Benedict and the election of Francis, or is it all an invention?
Are there legitimate concerns surrounding AL and Pope Francis' politics, or is it all just an invention?
What really perplexes me is that Pope Francis will dialogue all day with Team Soros, but has nothing but silence for the Dubia Cardinals as well as for concerned and confused Catholics. If Pope Francis would simply engage with his critics and those with concerns about his election, I think much good would come of it.
I've always entertained a quiet hope that Pope Francis is attempting some much-needed housecleaning, but must be extremely covert about it. Was it Emmett who posted the theory that he may be letting this blow up in the media as a distraction from something he's attempting to do? Whoever it was, the theory certainly lends some credence to my hope.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners; we need Thy guidance now more than ever!
Pray for our Church and pray for Pope Francis. The devil has been working 24/7 to divide Our Holy Catholic church and he is using arrogant and unfaithful Catholics to do his bidding. For Gods sake support Pope Francis.
God bless
Anthony W
I agree. Pope Francis and George Soros do seem to be working together. Is Soros an Antichrist and Bergolio a false prophet?
Saying that Francis is the "Worthy Shepherd" who will lead the flock out of error is ludicrous! He has brought nothing but division and confusion - that's not a mark of a "Worthy Shepherd. I think the "worthy shepherd" is yet to come. This post has made me lose much of my respect for your writings. If you think Francis is the Worthy Shepherd, I don't know if I can trust your other writings.
Couldn't agree more with Aloysius. I'm not saying the Pope is bad and I won't support him, but "Worthy Shepherd" who will lead the flock out of error, where have you been?
I agree about this post, and your position on Antipope Bergoglio, being highly disappointing especially considering your extraordinary perceptiveness in so many other ways.
Why do you still not consider that Benedict XVI may not be still the pope:
From his last general audience:
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
"THIS "ALWAYS" IS ALSO A "FOR EVER"... I REMAIN IN THE ENCLOSURE OF ST PETER."
Comments from his close friend and confidant, Archbishop Gänswein:
Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”
He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.)
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“ (Do you see how this echoes Benedict’s erroneous idea of the papal coronation being an irreversible event, creating an indelible/irrevocable mark on the recipient forever? It’s exactly the same idea Benedict put forth in his final general audience).
“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”
(cont)
His resignation:
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim.
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
Note the distinction between "ministerium" and "munus" and how he specifically resigns the "ministerium".
This deserves more than a dismissive - "Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was effective!!!!1!" Pope Benedict clearly demonstrates SUBSTANTIAL ERROR that invalidates his resignation under Canon 188 - For, unlike his assertions, that the papacy is an indelible mark, the papacy is an office - the office of the Bishop of Rome. THE PAPACY CANNOT BE BIFURCATED. The Holy Father's intention does not match with reality.
To close, canon 188:
Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est
Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
And this is disregarding his comments indicating some form of coercion, when he said, "Pray that I may not flee for fear of the wolves," or the St. Galen Mafia, or his laying of his pallium on the tomb of Pope Celestine.
This deserves a more serious consideration than a single line. And Bergoglio's formal, not merely material, heresy only becomes intelligible in light of the fact that HE WAS NEVER POPE and he never had the charism of papal infallibility.
I feel really disloyal, but I signed the petition in support of the filial correction - God have mercy on me if I'm wrong. But Pope Francis' mercy to all unrepentant sinners like Bonino who he associates with (she's very pro-death having carried out 10,000 abortions), seems to rub shoulders with communist leaders with no rebuke, rebukes Trump etc., anyway this all seems like it's leading us the wrong way. I do think the errors of Russia have spread throughout the world including the Vatican. God and Our Lady help us all. Viva Cristo Rey! Peter F
Oh, could the weeping pope, the one being scourged be Pope Benedict?
I pray we get heavenly assistance soon, we need it more than ever!
God bless. Viva Cristo Rey!
Peter F
"The errors of Russia have spread throughout the world".
Very true. Most people think we "beat" communism when the USSR fell. We didn't. For all that they paid lip service to communism, like the ChiComs the USSR was fundamentally a fascist, a National Socialist, country. The real communists, the international socialists, are on the ascendant now, most prominently in the European Union.
Pray for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart - or if that time has already past, for the Second Coming.
We owe more than respect, but religious assent of the intellect and will. While not infallible, it flows from the same source. The regular Ordinary Magisterium must be accepted by the faithful as consistent with Tradition and doctrine. We might prefer another formulation, discipline, or approach, but we cannot accuse the pope of doctrinal error, because to do so would be illogical - if the Church has asked for our unconditional assent to something, how can it be in error? God can't bind us to sin or error, therefore the pope cannot err in faith and morals in his magisterial teaching.
Truly this is The Fog Of War,is it not ? We each are streaming on one side or another, baffled as to the conviction of the side opposite to our own. We mistrust each others 'intelligence operations', etc.
It saddens me. This is much like the recent presidential election here in the U.S., and the division here continues unabated, & if anything it is worse.
I am grateful to be out of the fray in that my own opinion has no bearing: and I have great respect for the research, writings, dedication of the Many people engaged in this !
Like foot soldiers...perhaps 'all' we can do is use the weapon at our disposal, the Rosary.
We do owe obedience, to our pastor, our ordinary, and to the Pope.
But we owe obedience to God first. And who is Pope? Francis/Bergoglio, or Benedict/Ratzinger?
And how can we accept the Ordinary Magisterium as consistent with Tradition and Doctrine, if in practice if not confession they have not been so since Vatican II and the destruction of the liturgy?
Again, there is the ordinary universal magisterium (infallible) and the ordinary non-universal magisterium (fallible but to be respected unless at odds with the former).
But today the second is nearly at war with the first.
Mike, religious assent is a technical term and does not mean unconditional assent. It is also owed to your bishop. But what of,for instance, the bishops who said Humanae Vitae was wrong, and those who said that war is always intrinsic evil, and those conferences that disagreed with other conferences, and those bishops who followed Arius? This religious submission is not an absolute. Nor can it be. Truth comes first.
Not only is AE mid-rank, nowhere in it does it state that it is speaking authoritatively, something necessary for infallibility. AS a matter of fact, it downplays its authority.
Conor Foran, that is exactly what the dubia and the correctio are asking for - clarification that would make AL and its sequelae in line with the constant teaching (i.e, the ordinary universal magisterium).
Emmett, you mentioned the "incessant grumbling against Pope Francis since the publication of Amoris Laetitia"
Last Sunday's Gospel (the 24th) was the parable of the generous land owner. Seems fitting, no?
Gospel MT 20:1-16A
Jesus told his disciples this parable:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner
who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage,
he sent them into his vineyard.
Going out about nine o'clock,
the landowner saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard,
and I will give you what is just.'
So they went off.
And he went out again around noon,
and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o'clock,
the landowner found others standing around, and said to them,
'Why do you stand here idle all day?'
They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.'
He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman,
'Summon the laborers and give them their pay,
beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
When those who had started about five o'clock came,
each received the usual daily wage.
So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more,
but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying,
'These last ones worked only one hour,
and you have made them equal to us,
who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
He said to one of them in reply,
'My friend, I am not cheating you.
Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go.
What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?
Are you envious because I am generous?'
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Excellent quote Bridget! And again, very timely!
Here's another prophecy about a scheme to pull the pope down from his throne, which I originally thought pertained to Pope Benedict XVI and the St. Gallen Mafia. But we now know that he abdicated of his own accord, so the below is most likely a different attempt to pull the pope from his throne, which will be done unwillingly, with force. It also sounds very like the Third Secret, in which Blessed Elizabeth Canori-Mora saw the pope:
"surrounded by wolves who plotted to betray him… I saw the Sanhedrin of wolves which surrounded the Pope, and two angels weeping… when I asked them why they were sad and lamenting, looking upon Rome with eyes full of compassion they responded, ‘Wretched city, ungrateful people, the justice of God will chastise you.’”
“many ecclesiastics who persecute Jesus Crucified and His holy Gospel under the guise of doing good… Like furious wolves they scheme to pull the Church leader down from his throne.” Then she was allowed to see the terrible indignation these wolves aroused in God. “In terror I saw the blazing lightening bolts of Divine Justice fall about me. I saw buildings collapsing in ruins. Cities, regions and the whole world fell into chaos. One heard nothing but countless weak voices calling out for mercy. Countless people will be killed. [I saw that God was] extremely angry with those who persecute Him. His omnipotent hands were holding bolts of lightening, His face was resplendent with indignation and His gaze alone was enough to incinerate the whole world.”
God have Mercy!
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/bl-elizabeths-prophecy-of-pope.html
Mary - If I recognized Francis as pope rather than Benedict, I would be looking for that. But I am more concerned with the cabal of bishops and clergy in the Vatican and worldwide that have no concern for doctrine or liturgy in their pursuit of ever-increasing Modernism for the Church. The only individuals I trust in the highest offices of the Church are the two surviving Dubia Cardinals.
Especially Cardinal Burke! God bless Cardinal Burke, whom I was fortunate enough to have as my Archbishop for many years. A better man you will never find - and with the way he suffers so, probably a living saint.
I have been following this blog for a while but the amount of errors in this post and the statements about the "worthy Shepherd" are quite shocking. We all must be careful when being critical of a Pope but as I read your views Emmett, I am forced to conclude that there is a very disturbing blindness to your spiritual vision and especially your discernment regarding Pope Francis. His non responses to those who wish to "dialogue." His praises of those who are FAR from Catholic and border on outright Anti-Catholic people, his purposeful ambiguity in extremely important papers and off the cuff remarks that are right from extreme left Alinsky/communist radicals writings in scary. Even if he doesn't agree with Traditionalists or Orthodox Catholics he still need not marginalize them or call them "rigid" etc. Dialogue is apparently only open to like minded ideology not others.
What you are setting up by this post scares me because of what you "don't" see and what you "do" see is the opposite of what truly is. THAT is scary. But it also tells me something about you and where you are leading everyone. I do like much of what you have written and speculated on but I cannot follow after the errors you are promoting. I am sorry.
The problem here is with you...emmett hás a point of view that you will not find in anywhereelse... a point of view that only strong men can get...everywhere you van find good arguments against Pope Francis and bad arguments in his favor...but here is a magnificent argunment in his favor...above anything foi Said that is easy tô say...now that everyone say what you say.
You are all confusing me, and not only you, my brothers and daughters are split on this. It's very difficult to know who to follow. So Jesus. I guess I will continue with my rosary and wait and hope the rest of this will be more clear soon. Love you all. This is painful.
I have followed your blog with interest for awhile now, and have admired the depth of your research and work. Often I have had reservations about the self-assured way you have of prophesying about the future, when it is not given to us to know these things. But now I absolutely question your judgement. A Catholic with a rightly formed conscience and a true knowledge of his or her faith cannot but help to see Pope Francis has made a radical departure from Church Tradition and teaching, particularly from the vast riches of teachings that came from his immediate predecessors. We don't need bloggers such as yourself leading people further astray when our Church is facing such a crisis. You've lost this reader.
I'm grabbing the popcorn for when Bergoglio begins his official apostasy and people start falling over themselves to declare how it's not real or how the media is only portraying it that way. People need to come back to Earth. Bergoglio is the smartest guy in the room. He's playing all of us.
Emmett,
I want to thank you for all of your writings, but most especially those pertaining to this subject. There are so many out there who are arguing forcefully for the point of view contrary to that which your argument supports. I have been listening to both sides, and being traditional in many respects, had practically decided against Pope Francis. However, your arguments have made it clear as day (at least to me, and hopefully others) what is really going on here. Thank you, brother, for saving my faith.
Kara Maria
I couldn't agree with you more Emmett, and find it extremely distressing that people are attacking the Holy Father *primarily* (I fully believe) because of his focus on the Social Doctrines of the Catholic Church, as first laid out for the modern age by Leo XIII and re-affirmed by every single pope since, with these folks using any excuse they can as cover for the real issue: Far right-wing political ideologies that they ascribe to based on Neoliberalist laissez-faire capitalism is as incompatible with the teachings of the Church as hard-core Atheistic Marxism is; this is what the Church teaches, and what Pope Francis has been vocal about, and what many right-wing Catholics are truly so upset about. Incredulous hypocrisy at work.
"Rerum novarum" doesn't mince any words that it is immoral to pay any worker less than a true living wage, that Catholics *must* support labour unions, that markets *need* to be regulated for the good of society, etc.; this is what is *really* seeming to stick in the craws of critics of Pope Francis. And, again, "Rerum novarum" has been specifically affirmed by *every* single pope since Pope Leo XIII; Pope Francis hasn't created anything new whatsoever, but at most has shifted focus, which considering that income inequality is the worst it has been in the industrialized world since the 1920s, is a very timely shift of focus. Ignore the teachings of "Rerum novarum" and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church at your peril, for doing so could very easily keep creating conditions that would make for revolution in the future.
This comment is especially telling to me, "Is Soros an Antichrist and Bergolio a false prophet?"; this so very much betrays the mentality and that the *real* opposition to Pope Francis is based on the right-wing/left-wing political paradigm, a paradigm that the Pope, the Church, and the Gospel transcends. Putting your politics above your Catholic faith is an abomination, choosing your political beliefs over your faith where the two are completely incompatible is shameful, and people who do that are just as much "cafeteria Catholics" as those that reject the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, etc.
Catholics like Sean Hannity, Paul Ryan, etc., are promoting the politics and the social doctrine of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which happens to be the exact same basis that the Church of Satan uses, literally) that are wholly and absolutely incompatible with the Church's social teachings, and that Pope Francis has pointed this out so poignantly has made him a target for Catholics that presume to know better than the Church does. The motives here of many seem absolutely transparent to me, and very much akin to modern day Pharisees.
I am not certain that you have drawn the right conclusions.
Let's break the problem down.....
If Pope Francis has made a statement ex cathedra and it is heretical then either Papel infallibility is wrong or Francis is not the Pope. Given that the entire premise of the Catholic Church collapses if Papel infallibility is in error, (and for reasons to numerous to mention in this context) I suggest we assume it's not; then what remains is Francis is not the Pope.
Alternatively, If Pope Francis makes a statement that is not ex cathedra but is heretical then it's an error that if he denounces said error would be simply an error of opinion corrected. If he refused to denounce then he could be excommunicated for heresy.
Consequently the first question to determine the situation is...are his statements heretical or not?
I think secondarily, if the statements are worded in such a way that they are not clear..and could reasonably be interpreted as heretical, then the Pope must clarify. The magesterium of the Church does not exist to confuse the flock and mislead some into heretical beliefs, doing so intentionally would be heresy of a sort itself. We can know him by the fruits he produces and if he produces confusion, is this of God? The fact that Pope Francis does not respond and clarify concerns me greatly.
In the end, if the things stated by the Pope are new interpretations then I would submit that not only is he opposed by those theologians and Cardinals that make the argument against him, but all those who have gone before him and allowed the existing interpretation to stand. I do believe you are correct...this is significant, but I do not know if your conclusion that Pope Francis could be the Worthy Shepard is correct. Thank you and thank you for the good work you are doing.
Also - the issue isn't about social doctrine nor Marxism or capitalism, it has to do with who can receive Holy Communion I believe.
These are troubling times, no one should be signing their name to any document or poll or petition unless they are highly educated and informed in all the angles of the situation...please don't let anyone manipulate you to do otherwise [think of the mobs screaming for Barabas because they were stoked up to do so by the learned class].
Popocatepeti volcano erupted near Mexico City.
"I knew, btw, this would happen today. I didn't come right out and say it, but but, I hinted at it in a previous post. This proves I'm right on target with my predictions."
Oh how great is the benefit of hind sight and how easy it is to make virtually anything fit into our vague descriptions. Nostradamus all over again.
The "conversations" here are sometimes interesting but this back and forth ("I'm right!" No, you are wrong. I'm right") is quite ridiculous. Both sides have hints of truth (one side more so than the other!) but however it plays out both sides are still going to say: "See! I told you so! I was right all along!"
Oh bother!
Come Lord Jesus! Put an end to this ballyhoo.
Fr. J
A Future Papal Election ~ January 1, 2012 ~ Mary "Now I will come to the central point so there will be no mistake. The Cardinals will meet to elect a pope but an extraordinary intervention of God will occur that will alert the whole world to the special nature of this office. They will seek to discern this intervention, to grasp what is the will of God, but everything will not be clear at first. Some, however, will speak in divine wisdom and the search will begin to find the one whom God wants to raise up. He will not come forward at first, even though he knows that he is chosen by God. He will wait until the discussion is concluded and the Cardinals are settled. Then new manifestations will occur which will signal clearly the one whom the heavenly Father wants as his Pope. This will be a complete surprise to the world and to the Church but not to the one upon whom the mantle falls. This is my chosen son, the one whom I have picked. I want all of this to happen in a startling manner so the world and the Church know that this one was chosen by heaven, by God and not by men. He will be prepared because I will have prepared him. He will be the pope of Fatima and bring to fruition all of the gifts of Fatima, just in time to prepare the Church and the world for the Satanic onslaught."
http://locutionstotheworld.blogspot.com/2016/01/locutions-to-world-january-2012-future.html
Pope Francis & Stray Sheep ~ Mar 30th, 2015 ~ Mary "That is why I send Pope Francis. He is the herald of God’s mercy. He seeks out the stray sheep. He opens hearts that have been entrapped. He shines the light of faith into new areas. His messages ring true. People see his goodness and his love for all. For the first time, some people are awakened to faith. They feel one with him. They rejoice in his spirit and see the attractiveness of God’s kingdom. This Francis effect will go far and wide and is not limited to the inner walls of the Catholic community."
http://locutionstotheworld.blogspot.com/2016/09/locutions-to-world-march-2015.html
February 9, 2011 ~ The Pope Dies in Jerusalem ~ Jesus "However, when the darkness comes and Israel is in distress, there will be a new moment. The Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, will go to Israel in its darkest hour and lay down his life for Israel. The eyes of many Jewish people will be opened. They will say “We have been saved by the Catholic Church”. The soil will be open and receptive again to the original seed. My Church and my Jewish people will be joined as I have wanted them to be for centuries."
http://locutionstotheworld.blogspot.com/2016/01/february-4-2011-april-92011.html
It is my opinion that Pope Francis is working with the Holy Spirit in hidden ways, but I could be wrong, he may be an unwitting servant. I am convinced that after everything shakes out, we will be AMAZED and AWESTRUCK at how the Lord is working. Have trust, this is His Church.
So far we see the following:
---average Catholics talking about, debating, and educating themselves on topics they would otherwise only tune out as "blah blah blah" if preached to them from Pope on the pulpit (ie. Communion for divorced/remarried, homosexual inclinations vs. activity vs. marriage, etc., even birth control issues and what a valid Confession is --firm purpose of amendment, etc.). There is a lot of "chum" being dredged up and surfacing that a typical 2 x a year Catholic is being drawn into that they would otherwise tune out. Bishops and priests are also unable to distract or hide themselves from uncomfortable topics, everyone is being drawn to "pick a side", there's no hiding.
---there are people in positions of power and being raised to positions of power that were otherwise "careful" and in "the shadows"...they are now staking their claim and showing themselves...these are drawing out priests and bishops and their unorthodox theological positions like "moths to the light".
This clearly is a spiritual war, an epic spiritual war. Today it's the hard Right/conservatives being sifted, soon it will be the Left (and that will be a real demonic howler).
God told us in the scriptures during yesterday's Mass reading (Ezra 9.5-9) that He has placed a wall of protection around Judea and Jerusalem (the Church), it's up to us to keep ourselves safe behind that wall and in the bosom of the Church. We bounce ourselves out of it in two ways: through commiting mortal sin and/or schism.
This is the Lord's work to straighten out, and don't forget we were signalled at the beginning of Pope Francis' pontificate: Our Lady Undoer of Knots. There's something to that we shouldn't be ignoring.
While God is working things out, it's up to us to build His house, and we do that by washing our souls and adorning them with fine treasure, that's been the Mass readings for the past few days. When we work on OURSELVES, we enhance and better the CHURCH. That's how the average lay person is called to go to war for the Church, not raise fists to the Pope to correct him.
This correction was delivered to Pope Francis in August. Cardinal Caffarra, after this letter was delivered, begged Pope Francis to clarify Amoris Laetitia so that it would cease to be used to institutionalize sacrilege. Two days after Cardinal Caffarra died, Pope Francis gutted the Pope John Paul II Institute (which Cardinal Caffarra created at JPII's request) and remade it so as to promote Amoris and implement it throughout the world. The message was abundantly clear ... he was not going to correct errant interpretations of Amoris, and he was going to ignore the pleas of the faithful in this regard. Because of this, the decision was made to publish the letter.
I hope I'm explaining this well enough. We are desperately trying to ask the Holy Father to disallow grave error to be promulgated throughout the Church, and we are deeply grieved that he continues to refuse to do so.
Here's what needs to be understood about the situation and the filial correction:
1) Pope Francis' document Amoris Laetitia has itself caused scandal and division in the Church because several bishops have implemented it in such a way that certain Catholics will be permitted to be given sacrilegious absolutions and Communion. Because of this, Pope Francis has the obligation of his office to clarify the matter and denounce the practice being done in the name of Amoris.
2) There are several things he has said or done which contradict the Church's teaching, which means his actions and words in these specific circumstances bear the mark of heresy. The infallibility of the office of the papacy ONLY pertains to the magisterial power of the office. In other words, the Holy Spirit only protects from error being defined in doctrines and dogmas. Remember that Pope John XXII held and spoke on the view that the saints in Heaven are not in possession of the beatific vision, which is a heresy. He didn't define it as a part of the magisterium, and he never could have ... bit that didn't mean he couldn't fall into personal error, which is what we are seeing now. Hence, the correction.
3) I am vehemently opposed to any kind of rebellion against the papacy, and despite various news accounts, this filial correction is not rebellion. The letter did not call Pope Francis a heretic, as some headlines have suggested. The letter addressed certain public statements and actions conducted by him which contradict Church teaching ... this is a very important distinction.
What makes you think Benedict isn't the Worthy Shepherd? When I read Emmett description of St Jacinta's vision of the Pope weeping (in this article and in a comment in a previous article), I was instantly, clearly reminded of the visible weeping of Pope Benedict over the sex abuse crisis and many other occasions. Pope Benedict's entire papacy was overshadowed by the abuse crisis and he suffered greatly and wa ridiculed for it. Just google image search "Pope Benedict weeping or crying" vs the same for Pope Francis of you're not convinced (hint: I couldn't find one image of Pope Francis weeping). Pope Benedict's greatest charisms were his orthodoxy and clarity of teaching; yet, Pope Francis is anything but clear, seems to be waging battle against orthodoxy, and is being accused of spreading heresy, and rightfully so. It's been rumored that Pope Benedict resigned over political pressure and blackmail over scandals within the Church. So if Pope Benedict was worthy for the Petrine office, pressured into retirement and hidden away in a former monastery, then it seems to me like he's a possible candidate for the title of Worthy Shepherd.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying Pope Francis' papacy is invalid or that he's an antipope. I just think of the two popes maybe Pope Benedict is the one to restore the mantle of legitimate authority. Emmitt's theory could be valid; I'm simply offering an alternative.
Just one question....where is Benedct Xvi in this at all? I would aprecciate Someone can give a light on him...thanks
I agree. Read my comment below.
I am absolutely convinced that many (not all to be sure, but many) of the folks that are howling for Pope Francis' blood right now seem very much to me to be doing so on the basis that he is somehow "left-wing", and therefore at odds with their own political philosophy, as much as their own political philosophy is at odds with the social teachings of the Church. This, to me, invented controvery of the infamous footnote seems to be the mere cover they have been anxiously awaiting, as politically right-wing Catholics have been waiting for any chance to pounce since the earliest days of his pontificate; it reminds me very much of how the Sanhedrin used the false pretense that Our Lord was planning to overthrow the Roman Empire so that they could see Him murdered. The entire concepts of "right" or "left" are a false dichotomy when seen through the lens of the teachings of the Church; a true faith, as dicated by the sole teaching authority of the Church, transcends mere political labels like this.
As an example of this false dichotomy, things like the Whole Life Movement, or the Consistent Life Ethic, or even the actual Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church commissioned by Pope St. John Paul II seem to be routinely, yet falsely, labeled as being "left-wing", when it actuality these are all (to me at least) the guidelines that should inform all our decisions and beliefs in life, and with the latter that Catholics are *obliged* to follow whether they like it or not. Placing personal political beliefs, that ultimate rebellious idolatry of the Individual (with Lucifer being the most prime example), over the long standing teachings of the Church is the real heresy going on here.
I'm glad in a way that this open rebellion against the teaching authority of the Church that is taking place is at least happening under Pope Francis' watch; as terrible as it is, Pope Francis seems to have the most kind, merciful, yet also firm demeanor when speaking out with authority, and a particular charism to endure great pain, whether it be mental, physical, emotional, or spiritual pain. His health has not been good since far before his pontificate, and he lives with serious chronic physical pain, but accepts it so graciously that most people would never guess this is what he lives with every day. I think he is especially conditioned already for anything that may lie ahead, accepting pain graciously like we all should, but easier said than done.
There have been many times when he has prayed for the intecession of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, asking for her guidance as well, and has been given a confirmation through the gift of a white rose (just as The Little Flower promised she would give as a sign to those who asked for her help that her intercession had been granted); one story in particular with these white roses (there are quite a few examples) sticks out in my mind as to how Pope Francis so readily accepts pain with the grace granted him through the Holy Spirit.
...cont.
"Pope Francis on several occasions has spoken of his strong devotion to the Little Flower saint as well as his habit of asking her for favors: favors, his former press secretary says, which have often come in the form little miracles.
One of those miracles came Aug. 7, 2010, when the then-cardinal Bergoglio was accompanied by his press secretary, Federico Wals, to celebrate Mass honoring St. Cajetan on his feast day.
The cardinal was set to celebrate a Mass at the saint’s shrine in Buenos Aires and then walk to greet a long line of pilgrims, as he did every year.
“When leaving he told me that he had already asked Santa Teresita (St. Therese of Liseux) to send him a sign,” Wals said in an interview with Bolivian newspaper “El Deber” published May 31.
“When he told me this I was very skeptical and asked myself ‘A sign?’”
The former press secretary for Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – now Pope Francis – gave an interview to El Deber in which he detailed personal stories and memories from his time working with the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires.
Located on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, the Shrine of St. Cajetan draws thousands of pilgrims each year on the feast of his death.
Mass is celebrated each hour on the Aug. 7 feast, and after attending faithful queue and wait as long as 10 hours to pass in front of a small statue of the saint and kiss the glass separating it from them.
As archbishop of Buenos Aires then-cardinal Bergoglio would preside over a Mass himself, and then walk down the line of pilgrims – which sometimes extended 15 blocks – to greet people, speak with them and bless the children.
That day in 2010 “he didn't feel very well, but we were going to go anyway,” Wals said, explaining that Bergoglio had asked St. Therese to send him a sign as to whether to go all the way or not, since after the Mass he had to walk 15 blocks down the line of faithful.
After celebrating Mass the cardinal was in too much pain to walk the whole distance, and decided to go just two blocks before heading back to the center of Buenos Aires, Wals recalled.
However, as they reached the second block Wals said they came across a man “taller than (the cardinal), dressed with a black overcoat and he had his right hand inside the coat.”
Before they could blink the man “pulled out a white rose,” he said, explaining that Bergoglio was “surprised,” blessed the rose and tried to move out of the way.At that moment the man told the future Pope “you don't understand anything: this is the sign that you are waiting for.” He then smiled and handed Bergoglio the rose.
Once Bergoglio heard what the man said he immediately grabbed the rose, Wals said. The cardinal then told him, “Federico, Santa Teresita did not abandon me, I'm going to walk until the end of the line (of faithful).”
“At that moment the man disappeared, we never saw each other again. Bergoglio's countenance changed, he was radiant and continued until the end.”
Wals has met with Bergoglio since his election as Bishop of Rome, and said that as Pope, other similar things have happened.
One of them took place in January while the Pope was on his way to the Philippines. During his flight from Sri Lanka to Manila Pope Francis received a bas-relief, or carving, of St. Therese from French journalist Caroline Pigozzi.
After receiving the image, Francis told other journalists present that “I have the habit, when I don't know how things will go, to ask St. Therese the little child, St. Therese of Jesus, to ask her if she takes a problem in hand, some thing, that she send me a rose.”
“I asked also for this trip, that she'd take it in hand and that she would send me a rose. But instead of a rose she came herself to greet me,” he said.
Pigozzi spoke with CNA later, saying that she had originally found the image in a Paris flea market, and had polished it herself to give to the Pope as part of a set for Christmas and for his Dec. 17 birthday."
...cont.
This story really strikes me as quite a metaphor and foreshadowing of the journey Pope Francis may be destined for as the Vicar of Christ Crucified... as in the story of that day in Buenos Aires, despite incredible pain, he asked for Little Flower's guidance, and when he received a white rose, he soldiered on, I'm sure offering up his pain to Our Lord and Our Lady's intentions, and from him an internal radiance of love glowed that outshone the pain inflicted on him. The parallel of this story compared to his entier pontificate, including what is to come, is very striking to me.
Major aspects of Little Flower's own life experiences, how she suffered herself greatly without complaint, very happy and honoured to be chosen by Our Lord to be a victim soul, and the almost miraculously great merciful love she had for everyone, seem to be greatly reflected in Pope Francis' own life, so I'm not surprised by the very special spiritual connection he has for St. Thérèse.
When I pray my morning offering, the last words of the prayer, offering up all I have in large part for the intentions of the Holy Father, these last words have such a greater spiritual intensity to me with all that is going on right now:
"Oh my Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer You all my prayers, works, joys and sufferings of this day, for all the intentions of Thy Most Sacred Heart, in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world, in reparation for my sins, for the intentions of all our associates, and in particular for the intentions of our Holy Father."
Please, no matter what side of this issue you are on, that I sadly agree with Emmett could very easily lead to a huge schism and crisis in the Church like has not been seen since the Western Schism, or the Protestant Reformation, something that devastating *right* when the world needs the Church more than ever, please pray for the intentions of our Holy Father, Pope Francis, even if it pains you personally to do so. Please trust in the Church and the promise that Our Lord made to St. Peter; we can all see so many times in history, to their very great detriment, when members of the Church have thought themselves right and the Church wrong, like Martin Luther as an example, which has led to so many believers losing the Sacraments... please choose to be on the right side of history right now.
I remember when this exact quote of wolves plotting against and surrounding the pope were circling around the internet at the time of Pope Benedicts resignation. Let's not falsely apply them to Francis when he's brought the filial correction upon himself by refusing to clarify his position.
Emmett, AL is not an act of the magisterium. This entire post is bizarre. Pope Francis the Worthy Shepard??? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Anyone else??
You hit the nail on the head. The consecration of Russia was intended to stop the spreading of errors of Russia. It seems that the consecration or may not have been valid. Sr Lucia said that the consecration was valid but late. What is evident is the errors of Russia continued to spread in the forms of communism and socialism. These errors are now mainstream in Europe and America and possibly influence the current pope.
I'm with you.
Anonymous said...
Just one question....where is Benedct Xvi in this at all? I would aprecciate Someone can give a light on him...thanks
29 September 2017 at 02:11
My take: we are in such unprecedented times that God has given Benedict XVI a particular cross to bear: to live a hidden life of prayer, mortification and to annihilate himself for Pope Francis & the Church. He is a "victim soul" in a sense. He is a nuclear weapon for the Church.
I could be wrong of course, it's just my "sense" of what's happening.
Have you actually ever examined his actions, his words, his air italia and sancta marthae "catechisms" or who the man surrounds himself with? Try this one on for size.. Our Lady apparently at the foot of the cross accused God of lying to her!!! The biggest problem facing the world today is youth unemployment.Jesus wept if this man is an angelic shepherd Martin Luther was right all along
Oh and throw into the mix his downright refusal to kneel at the consecration or in adoration!!! His own words endict him, he himself said he will be the one who leads the church into schism nobody else!!
2+2=5 hows that for arrogance? Your certainly right about their arrogance when his minions distort basic truth and logic to that extent!
Don't forget his holywood friends clooney and di caprio or his expressed admiration for the Great bonino a woman with the blood of countless unborn children on her hands
If any of this an approved apparition then Thank God we aren't bound to private revelation!!
First, just because you don't agree with Emmett's current post it does not follow that his previous conclusions are undermined or invalid. Some people are saying that they have to ignore everything he's written now, and that's just irrational. It is possible he can be mistaken in this but not in other things.
.
Second, I am glad for this post, although I am not sure what to think. Like one of the posters above, I've been listening to both sides and leaning toward the "filial correction side," but this post has given me pause and forced me to reevaluate things. I'm still not ready to stake a claim yet, but I always thought St. Malachy's prophecy was cast off far too quickly by most. Perhaps Pope Francis is Peter the Roman.
.
There are many possibilities right now:
.
1) Pope Francis was not validly elected, and therefore either
1a) Pope Benedict is pope, or
1b) there is a sede vacante.
.
2) Pope Francis was validly elected, and is in error. This could be because
2a) he is extremely ignorant/naive about many things (Church teaching, the need to respond clearly, etc.) and does not realize the problems he is causing, or
2b) he is maliciously trying to tear down the Church, as an antipope or false prophet or what have you, or
2c) he believes that he is in fact doing good, and has a good intention, although he is in error.
.
3) Pope Francis was validly elected, is not in error, and is being attacked. This could be true because
3a) people have twisted his words to interpret them heretically, although he means them in a sense that is consistent with Tradition (I think this is Emmett's argument, but maybe I misunderstand), or
3b) evil people in the Vatican have twisted his words such that what we receive in translations and documents is not what he actually thinks or says but has been maliciously altered.
.
Of course, there may be other possibilities, but those seem most obvious to me. Some seem more likely than others, but we might write off some possibilities too quickly. Some other considerations:
* It is possible that Pope Francis is being physically or spiritually prevented from responding to the dubia. If physically, it could be that he wants to respond in an orthodox manner but evil people in the Vatican are preventing him. If spiritually, it could be that he would answer in a heretical manner and the Holy Spirit is preventing him from responding in order to preserve infallibility.
* I believe that the Body will follow the Head, that is the Church will follow Christ through His passion. The revelation of sex abuse and other sins was like the Garden of Gethsemane. The apostasy of many cardinals and bishops was like the betrayal of Judas. The confusion we are in now is like the apostles fleeing in all directions. Perhaps, now while the Church is scourged, Pope Francis is living out Peter's three denials. IF this is the case, then we can expect him to repent and fervently defend the faith. Perhaps this is when he becomes the Good Shepherd or Angelic Pope.
* Alternatively, if Pope Francis is indeed erroneous, perhaps his actions represent the betrayal of Judas instead, and we haven't even gotten to the true scourging of the Church yet.
.
All I'm trying to say is that there are many possibilities, and although we would like to immediately disregard some there are compelling reasons for many of them, and quite frankly I think it is too soon to tell. Things may seem obvious, but is that a deception? We need to pray, fast, and observe. If these times were not cut short then even the elect would be lost....
(cont.)
Afterthought: I must admit it is incredibly bizarre the type of people he keeps company with and praises, and actions do speak louder than words. Yet, even still, maybe he will have a huge conversion. Can't wait to see what Oct. 13 brings...
Our Lord surrounded Himself with tax collectors, prostitues and other "undesirables", the absolute lowest of the low, so the company the Holy Father keeps should not be any kind of indictment against him... perhaps like Christ he is trying to minister to the folks who need it the most. There is a very good precedent for that to say the least...
If he is allying himself with people who are concerned about our stewardship of the environment, granted to all of us in Genesis, again, he is following scripture as well as the Church's social teachings.
Despite accusations of "socialism", anything he has said or done regarding how our societies functions are again right out of the Social Doctrine. Call it socialism if you want, but it is merely the teachings of the Church... if you don't agree, I have a hard time understanding how you can even consider yourself Catholic. Part of being a group is abiding by that group's rules, and for Catholics, that mean submitting your individual will to the teaching authority of the Church, like it or not.
Those people repented though, you are not bound to submit to heresy, St Paul by your logic was a schismatic by his act of rebuking St Peter, but of course 2+2=5 and like i said to you earlier Our Lady accused God of lying to her according to Bergolio, if your going throw accusations like how can people consider themselves Catholic look at the peoples fidelity comparing to Bergolio and his cohorts
And abortion kills more people than climate change does so maybe he is right in describing Bonino as a great
"And abortion kills more people than climate change does so maybe he is right in describing Bonino as a great"
This is a false equivalency; Pope Francis has been completely orthodox regarding both these issues in his teachings, and to even try to hint that he hasn't is at best disingenuous, and at worst outright slander.
It seems to me quite clearly to come down to certain people not wanting to accept the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which Pope Francis has admittedly and quite rightfully promoted the teachings of (and again, call that socialism if it makes you feel better, but is anything but), as both binding and authoritative.
If you read the Compendium, and don't agree with any part of it because it conflicts with your political views, again, I would question if it isn't you who believes that 2+2=5, that you can pick and choose which teachings you like and which you don't, which is the basis of Protestantism... as Catholics, we cannot pick and choose, it doesn't work that way... you either submit yourself to the teaching authority of the Church as the sole arbiter on faith and morals, or you set yourself up as no different than Martin Luther:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
2+2 =4 truth,logic and reason tells me that I am not Antonio Spadaro so please don't tell me i believe nonsense like that. Did St Paul rebuke St Peter? Did bergolio describe an abortionist as a great?? Please don't presume to lecture me on my political views either I haven't espoused any for you to make that assumption. Luther was a heretic I will have no association with his views thank you, again I am not bound to hold to heretical teaching, now is the the teaching of the Church in this day and age universal and consistent? What do you make of some of his ludicrous ideas such as the belief that God lied to the Virgin Mary? What do you make of his refusal to bow his knee before Our Lord?
What do you make of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church? Do you submit to its teachings or not? You are setting up straw men rather than addressing the crux of the matter about the teaching authority of the Church vs. the Individual will. Like I've written several times, either you submit yourself to it, or you are a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing, and it doesn't work that way.
I have stated my friend that I wil not accept heretical teaching so now your turn to the questions I put to you? The teaching authority of the church is supreme unless it teaches contrary to establish dogma, Now i personally believe based on a lot of discernment,reading, praying that what is being qusetioned here is a valid set of questions, is it now that mortal sin is no barrier to receiving?? Who is right Jason? Germany argentina malta or poland? So who's teaching authority do you want me to submit to?
I'm being very specific here no matter how you attempt to dodge the question; are you saying the Social Doctrine of the Church is heretical now??
Rome and those surrounding the Pontiff have certainly become more vicious in defending him, never ever engaging in intellectual arguments, merely attacking like ravenous wolves or child bullies those who pose questions. The climate is bad throughout the Church, in Rome it is positively toxic. Under Francis the Vatican has become a place of fear and arbitrary oppression, there was a public glimpse of that in the sacking of Cdl Mueller by the Pope, and earlier in the dismissal of a couple of priests from the CDF and amongst laymen of Libero Milone, former Auditor General and many others. It is not just in theology that 2+2=5, or whatever number the Pope chooses that day, it extends to morality and ordinary human decency, ultimately it is a serious attack on the rationality of the Catholic faith and intellectual rigour.
From Father Ray Blake's blog, check it out Jason its an excellent read.
...because the social teachings therein that Pope Francis has been so exceptionally out-spoken on are what seem to behind the smoke and mirrors, and the true reason for the attacks on the Holy Father, which is also a very Protestant attack on one of the most basic tenets of our faith; Petrine primacy.
I can't understand why you find it so difficult to either agree or disagree with the Social Doctrine of the Church; if you can't submit to its teachings, which you seem quite reluctant to answer, you can't assume to call yourself an orthodox Catholic.
Im saying that the sixth commandment and Christ's words on the matter are definitively clear, Jason you have dodged every question I put to you so please read back and answer, because I am open to an education and indeed a fraternal correction. So Jason 1) was St Paul schismatic or a cafeteria catholic for rebuking Peter?
2) can someone receive now being in mortal sin?
3)whose teaching authority am i submitting to? The Germans,argentinians, maltese or the Polish?
4) what do you make of Bergolios refusal to bend his knee to The Lord?
5) how about his view that Our Lady accused God of lying to Her)
6) what do you think of the description of Bonino as great?
I would genuinely like to hear your views on the above questions?
Your again attacking and dodging my questions? Please rwply to the post at 6.48? Also did you read the quote from Fr Blake?
I can see you're going to obstinately refuse to answer the very simple question I put to you as to whether the accept the teachings of the Social Doctrine of the Church, set down by Leo XIII and reaffirmed and expanding upon by every single pope since then. It's a simple yes or no answer, and refusing to answer whether you accept these teachings is very telling in and of itself. If you can't answer that question, I have zero interest in any more dialogue with you, because we've already hit a brick wall.
I'll end by saying that I fully agree with what Emmett wrote in this latest post of his, and I'd caution anyone reading to consider very carefully the implications of siding with those accusing the Pope of heresy, inviting schism, and potentiality separating yourself from the Church. I'm done.
Seriously? Slightly hypocritical there? You lay them out in points like I have and you show me where you addressed anything I put to you? You are choosing to ignore what I am asking you, can you answer the points I raised to you?
Ah ok I'm guessing here,because you refuse to engage with me, so il presume to garner that you believe that issues such as labour conditions and the environment are the real reasons for what you perceive to be the questioning of the pope? Correct? To be honest absolutely not, to my mind anyway i was refering to the correction and the dubia concerning mortal sin and communion. Il give you honesty, i would class myself as apolitical as every candidate presenting in elections in this area are pro choice, therefore I choose to vote for no one. Now admittedly I am relatively porly catechised so the social doctrine of the church i must confess I do not know a great deal about, therefore if you expand on which particular teaching you would like an answer to I'll gladly answer
I am suddenly struck how we are seeing in real time the same emotions, the anger, the frustration, the self-righteousness that Martin Luther and his followers displayed almost 500 years ago to the day (everywhere online and offline). The average lay person needs to be very careful not to get sucked up into this.
Sept. 23rd: Signs in the sky
Oct. 13th: 100th Anniversary of miracle of the sun in Fatima
Oct. 31st: 500 years of Martin Luther rebellion
Special days of prayer over the next week (lots going on):
Sept. 29th: Sts. Michael, Gabriel & Raphael
Oct. 1st: St. Therese of Lisieux
Oct. 2nd: The Holy Guardian Angels
Oct. 4th: St. Francis (from whom our Pope chose his name)
Oct. 5th: St. Faustina
Oct. 7th: Our Lady of the Rosary
Maybe it's time to pull out an icon or picture of a Heavenly Guardian Angel and say extra daily prayers for guidance and protection.
A quick web search on Luther's "feelings" about the pope, some quotes from him...
I know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: “You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is divine.”
I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.
I am more afraid of my own heart than the Pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great Pope, Self.
Reviewing recent commentary from various quarters, maybe contemporary Catholics and Lutherans really are closer to each other than ever before!
According to Francis Luther wasn't in error about justification!!! So at a guess id say sin boldly Martin and Francis might well get on like a house on fire
We're going to have to settle ourselves down here, and perhaps work together some way we can see this going forward without the Church entering into a full-scale schism. What we are seeing here in the com-box is a microcosm of the division throughout the whole Church atm, unfortunately. I can see very good arguments coming from both sides. The only way I see forward is if everyone stands together to petition for an ecumenical council, which will exercise this matter infallibly, and hopefully reverse the stains strewn on the garments of the Church since the "Spirit of V2" entered the Dome of the Vatican. I sincerely hope and pray that this is Cardinal Burke's true objective in all this.
Couldn't it all be settled with an aswer to five simple questions? I would love to join your petition Emmett but I've been excommunicated for right-wing Protestantism by Jason R 😉 a ballymurphy right wing prod I ask you!
Continuing to parrot non sequiturs isn't helping; case in point:
Stop It Already With “But Paul Corrected Peter”
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/stop-already-paul-corrected-peter/#VgMVFB6fCiQxoebK.99
All of these so-called justifications for the attack on Pope Francis are quite transparently self-serving and subsidiary. The cart has been put squarely before the horse; certain Catholics have strongly disliked the pontificate of Pope Francis from the very beginning because he has spoken out forcefully on doctrinal social teachings that have become well established since 1871, falsely branding him a "socialist", which is ridiculous because the Church is a spiritual organization, not a political party, when he has merely upheld Catholic teaching on many issues that a certain faction would rather pretend doesn't exist.
They have been basically "out to get him" from the get-go, grabbing onto any perceived loose threads, real or not, and pulling them for all they're worth in hopes of unraveling Pope Francis' pontificate, and getting the Church back to "normal" in their narrow view. They seem to not be able to care less that they are going down the same route of many unfortunates before them, because what all of this boils down to is a revolt against Petrine primacy and the exclusive right of the Church to teach on faith and morals. Individuals are saying that they know better than our Holy Father.
And with some of these out-and-out conspiracy theories, such as that Pope Benedict wasn't "allowed" to step down from his role as pope so ipso facto Pope Francis isn't actually the pope, some of the attacks against the Holy Father have become quite desperate, and even silly, so credulous that I'm almost embarrassed for the people espousing these ideas.
Emmett, I'll refrain from commenting anymore as not to generate any more needless animosity, but I have to say I don't need anyone putting words into my mouth, I'm quite capable of expressing myself clearly without any assistance, thank you very much.
If your referring to me and creating animosity i can assure you I feel no animosity from you but I would like civil exchanges, in fact I admire the courage of your convictions. By the way I think if you scroll back a bit i re-read our exchange and realised perhaps there were wires crossed, the post after 6.50.
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular RC. It is a very emotive issue here. I think everyone is upset here, so tempers can flare. I had to update my original post myself, as it was rushed out too quickly and lacked balance. I didn't include what I really think this Filial Correction may bring, which could end with a positive result in an ecumenical council.
Please keep commenting Jason! We need to hear both sides. I don't think there are enough people sticking up for Pope Francis here. But I think some of RC's concerns are genuine. We need to work through this whole mess together to find the truth at the other side.
Well if anything I said upset Jason or angered him I unreservedly apologise, in a way it's good to see passion for the faith in an increasingly secular world.
Emmett, I pray that the Warning is almost upon us, surely it will sort everything out - at the very least, put our confusion in perspective, our humility as priority and our commenting, an outlet for wonder and gratitude.
BTW - the Warning is said to impact everyone- the innocent babes to victim souls, kings and popes.
Karen
Holy Scripture explains to us the importance of having two witnesses to seek correction of our brother where needed - an act of mercy. Our Lady said that in the end the world will be saved by the Scapular and the Rosary. The 'Filial Correction' was signed mainly by lay people on July 16, the Feast of Our Lady of Mt Carmel (who gave us the Scapular Devotion, and who appeared thus at the end of the Fatima Apparitions). The 25 page letter was presented to His Holiness on August 11 and most of us heard about it on the day of the Great Sign. It could possibly be that the remaining dubia cardinals sign a formal correction on October 7, the Feast of the Holy Rosary, presenting it to the Holy Father sometime thereafter, thus becoming the second witness.
For those who have the Marian Movement of Priests Blue Book, Our Lady speaks many times of the 'the man of iniquity'. The MMP-USA website has a concordance listed under its resources page where one can find the actual paragraphs where Blessed Mother refers to this man. Up until Her final reference she says he WILL enter into the interior of the church and manifest his power, leading to the 'abomination of desolation'. In the final reference on Aug 5, 1995, the Feast of Our Lady of Snows, She says in 548 (i):
"...Do not be disturbed, because this forms part of the mystery of iniquity, which the Church has known from her very birth. In fact, Satan - who drove Judas, one of the twelve, to become the traitor - has entered even into the Apostolic College."
The previous entry where Blessed Mother had said he WILL enter was on March 11, 1995 in 539 (i) - so something happened within those five months. If we look into the beginnings of the Sankt Gallen group, not just when they first gathered, we may find something.
On April 10, 1978, in the Blue Book, Mother says - of the priests and faithful consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart:
"And you will be witnesses of all that the Immaculate Heart of a Mother, who is nothing other than merciful, can do in these years to lead all her poor wandering children to salvation."
These references taken from the Blue Book are not meant to be read in isolation but within the context of the mission that Mother set out for us, to always seek her help in our sufferings and to be faithful to the Pope and to the Church.
Karen
RC, I'd like to take a crack at the question you posed to Jason- "how about his view that Our Lady accused God of lying to her?"
I hadn't heard about this so I was curious to see what the story was. It's this daily homily you're taking about right? I think this was back in 2013.
"The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.
“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things [she] told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.”
The "blasphemous" line is "Our Lady was human! And perhaps even had the desire to say: 'Lies! I was deceived!"
I don't see this as blasphemous. He's referencing her humanity. Temptation is not a sin, correct? I always picture temption as annoying flies buzzing around our head that we're constantly having to swat away. Jesus and Mary ALWAYS swatted temption away. Pope Francis was merely trying to make the Virgin Mary relatable. I don't think she'd have a problem with Pope Francis trying to draw more towards her by pointing out her human side and relatability. When I say a rosary and think about the mysteries, I'm always trying to put myself in her shoes and think what it was like actually living her life as the mother of God. It's hard to imagine sometimes!
Thank you Bridget, this is exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I'm always seeking to learn and understand as I'm lacking in substantial theological and philosophical nous. I shall have to have a listen to the excellent Fr Ripperger on youtube, am I right in thinking Our Lady although most certainly human was preserved from even the very thought of sin as Her nature was so peefect?
Erm that should obviously read Her nature was so perfect not peefect!! Emmett is there any way of editing a post?
Yeah maybe you're right on that- she was preserved from even the thought of sin. So maybe Pope Francis was wrong when he said that. But what's the end goal here? Drawing more people in to God through Mary. If his homily sparked the desire in some to think more about Mary's life and say a rosary, then what's wrong with that? I'm sure Mary is fine with him misspeaking as long as it draws more people closer to her and Jesus. Right? Just get people praying again. Then God will straighten the other things out.
Hi Bridget, here is a counter argument for your consideration.
By John Vennari
Pope Francis delivered a homily on Friday December 20, in which he gives the impression that the Crucifixion of Our Lord was something that took Our Lady by surprise, and that she may have been tempted to believe the Angel’s promise to her were ‘lies’, and that she was “deceived”.
We will first present Pope Francis’ text from Vatican News Service and then provide the Catholic response.
“The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence,” the Pope said. “From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary.” The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross. The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.”*1
Pope Francis is certainly a newsmaker, as he continually utters confusing statements that leave Catholics reeling the world over. The above statement about Our Lady is certainly one of the most troublesome.
Pope Francis, by claiming Our Lady was probably surprised and confused by the drama of the Crucifixion, actually promotes a Protestant reading of the Blessed Mother that emphasizes her “humanity” over the unique exalted gifts she received as Mother of God. Whether he realized it or not, Pope Francis’ statements are actually a denigration of Our Lady, and the first who would say so is Saint Alphonsus Ligouri.
Queen of Martyrs
In The Glories of Mary, one of the greatest treaties on Our Blessed Mother, St. Alphonsus explains that Our Lady’s understanding of Old Testament prophecies surpassed the understanding of the prophets themselves.
Citing saints and holy teachers, St. Alphonsus writes that the Blessed Virgin Mary, even before she become Our Lord’s Mother, “[knew] how much the Incarnate Word was to suffer for the salvation of men.”
Saint Alphonsus explains that this profound understanding of Our Lord’s suffering was one of the great sufferings of her life, for when She gave birth to Our Lord, when she nursed Him and warmed the baby Jesus in her arms, she was aware of the death that awaited him, and this sword continually pierced her Immaculate Heart.
Thus Saint Alphonsus teaches that Our Lady was the “Queen of Martyrs,” as we recite in the Litany, since her martyrdom was “longer and greater than that of all the martyrs.”
In short, the Passion and Crucifixion of Our Lord did not take Our Lady by surprise, as Francis would suggest, nor did she misunderstanding Scripture to mean that the “kingdom” would be a glorious rebirth of a kind of Davidic Kingdom.
Absolutely to be welcolmed causing anyone to contemplate Her superlative existence and indeed every single rosary is a an exquisite bouquet presented to The Majestic Trinity. Thank you again Bridget for the exchange of ideas
Everybody calm down a wee bit:
Domine, labia mea aperies, et os meum annunitabit laudem tuam. - Psalm 50
First of all, every time you begin a good work, you must pray to Him most earnestly to bring it to perfection. Rule of St. Benedict - Prologue:4
...keep your tongue free from vicous talk and your lips from all deceit. Turn away from evil and do good; let peace be yoru quest and aim. - Psalm 34
Do not be daunted immediately by fear and run away from the road that leads to salvation. It is bound to be narrow at the outset. Rule of St. Benedict - Prologue:48
Do not aspire to be called holy before you really are, but first be holy that you may more truly be called so. - Rule of St. Benedict - 4:62
... I have resolved to keep watch over my ways that I may never sin with my tongue. I have put a guard upon my mouth. I was silent and was humbled, and I refrained even from good words. - Psalm 39
In a flood of words you will not avoid sinning. - Proverbs 10
Prefer nothing whatever to Christ, and may he bring us all together to everlasting life - Rule of St Benedict 72:11-12
Among these spiritual persons there are also those who fall into another kind of spiritual anger. Through a certain indiscreet zeal they become angry over the sins of others, the reprove these others, and sometimes even feel the impulse to do so angrily, which in fact they occasionally do, setting themselves up as lords of virtue. All such conduct is contrary to spiritual meekness. - Dark Night of the Soul, 1:5:2
This night is a painful disturbance involving many fears, imaginings, and struggles ... . Due to the apprehension and feeling of his miseries, he suspects that he is lost and that his blessings are gone forever. The sorrow and moaning of his spirit is so deep that it turns into vehement spiritual roars and clamoring, and sometimes he pronounces them vocally and dissolves in tears. - Dark Night of the Soul, 1:9:7
"We need to work through this whole mess together to find the truth at the other side."
Amen to that.
I don't intend to comment on this particular post. I've made my thoughts known to Emmett privately. But one thing to consider...
Division is of the devil.
As divided as we are at the moment - here, in this seeming place of refuge for some of us - the divisions and arguments are not a beacon of spiritual light. If you insist on discussing, discuss, but don't take things personally and think very hard before you start typing. That Latin phrase in my previous comment translates as, "O Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall proclaim Thy praise." If your comments can't fulfill that, perhaps reconsider the comment.
Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat! I highly,highly recommend the excellent Fr Ripperger whose talk on the spiritual and psychological effects of being negative is really really helping me a lot at the minute, extremely balanced and so much good advice, give it a listen on youtube but remember to offer a rosary for Fr's intention.
Oh this is a good point! I understand his concern with inadvertently promoting the Protestant view of Mary. But yeah, I'm still sticking with my "end goal" argument of gaining rosaries for Mary! Thanks, RC!
I personally must thank Pope Francis a lot, for he alone took my mercy to another level. He reminds me how difficult and how painful it is to love and to forgive. I never felt so challenged inside the Church, never.
Sometimes I feel as if I had a sword in my chest for this absolute lack of charity and the mess we witness today.
It has been truly a Calvary for the faithful. The only option for us is to pray and offer sacrifice, when possible.
Cdl Parlin´s yesterday statement regarding the importance of dialogue inside the Church was very very opportune.
Glod bless us all. St. Michale, pray for us, pray for the Church.
G.
I just had the most interesting experience. Last night, deeply concerned about everything I've been reading in our discussions here, I prayed to Our Lady for guidance. This morning I found an article on the Crisis Magazine about Pope Francis' opposition to same-sex marriage and how those in support of it are feeling very betrayed by a Pope they thought was on their side.
.
The author mentioned that Cardinal Bergoglio was speaking against same-sex marriage well before he was made Pope, but the deeply merciful stance he has shown since ascending to the Petrine office disarmed everybody. Since the day he first appeared in Papal white, he has shifted the focus from dogma to social issues, and that has thrown everyone off balance. The things he has said about what he called the "ideological colonization of the family" do not sound at all like a Pope who supports the liberal interpretation of AL.
.
This puts me firmly back to my original opinion on that whole mess. If he hasn't answered the dubia, and if he doesn't answer the current filial correction, we're going to find eventually that he has good reasons. Whether he's being prevented by unsavory elements, or whether he's mounting a distraction to cover something else he's doing, or whatever else the cause may be, is not for us to know at this time. We may never know. The fact is that, no matter what we see or think we see, God is still in charge.
JMC
Prophets can be a source of stumbling and confusion for many, and maybe this is why everyone is so bewildered right now about Pope Francis. I don't think it can go on much longer. I don't see any other option but for an ecumenical council to be now announced. Maybe this confusion was meant to be. Perhaps this could be the true significance of the centenary of the Miracle of the Sun, when the angel standing in the sun calls for the eschatological banquet.
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, gather for the great supper of God" (Rev 19:17)
Something came up in a conversation I was having elsewhere (jokingly) about the Knights Templar. It made me remember that they were dissolved on Friday 13th October, 1312. 13th October also falls on Friday this year. They exemplify a corrupted order, the army of Satan, if you will, and precursor to Freemasonry. Perhaps the symbolism of the Miracle of the Sun extends to this as well, when the armies of Satan will be crushed under the feet of the Woman Adorned with the Sun. Perhaps fire will come down from heaven to consume this diabolical host encircling the camp of the saints right now, causing such mess and confusion. An ecumenical council would certainly unite us right now, so our combined forces can to put an end to this diabolical assault on the Heavenly Jerusalem.
Did October 13th fall on a Friday in 1312? Maybe that's at the root of the whole superstitious dread of Friday the 13th... (tongue very firmly in cheek here...;D)
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/correctio-filialis-response-to-some.html
AL #291. Although the Church realizes that any break of the marriage bond “is against the will of God”, she is also “conscious of the frailty of many of her children…She turns with love to those who participate in her life in an incomplete manner, recognizing that the grace of God works also in their lives by giving them the courage to do good, to care for one another in love and to be of service to the community.”
My comment : Presumably, the Pope is speaking of people who have broken the marriage bond. Since there is nothing in simply being divorced that would impair participation in the Church’s life, he must be referring to the divorced who have entered a new union, or to those who are living together without marriage. If these couples are in a state of culpable grave sin, all of their good works and love and service are dead works. If they are in an objective state of sin, but without culpability, there must be care to avoid scandal. Assuming that is so, then they can be in grace and, under certain circumstances, can participate in the true life of the Church, which is the life of Christ given in sanctifying grace, not simply in her activities.(CCC, 1650) However, once they are informed of their Christian moral duty, they cannot plead invincible ignorance.
Formal teaching from a canonically elected Pope WILL NEVER BE HERECY!! Jesus, Himself declared this by stating what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven and What is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven.
Cardinal Parolin now involved calling for 'dialogue'
Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Pietro Parolin has said it is “important to dialogue even within the Church” in response to the ‘filial correction’ issued on Sunday.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/28/cardinal-parolin-calls-for-dialogue-after-filial-correction/
RC I just wanted to apologize for my acrid tone in my posts from yesterday. I read and really thought about what Mark W. had posted, and though I still have those opinions, I realize my delivery left a lot to be desired and I wasn't displaying the Chritian charity I'm called to. Hopefully no hard feelings... that which unites us is gigantic in this world today dwarfing the things we may differ on. Thank you Mark for your own filial correction, it is much appreciated.
Mary P, the following may be helpful to you:
[The] religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
(Lumen gentium 25)
If you do not submit to the magisterium of the current Roman Pontiff, then I fear that you have placed yourself in open schism.
Absolutely no hard feelings at all Jason and I too apologise. I think there was a bit of confusion in what we were both seeking clarity on. At the end of the day we share a very beautiful faith and I believe much more unites us than divides us, as I said earlier on I admire the courage of your convictions and the passion for the faith is very encouraging,especially in such an increasingly secularised,atheistic world.God bless you friend.
G, you seem to be among a host of others who have been instilled with a deep dislike of Pope Francis, and you can certainly place this blame at the feet of those whose material you have been reading beforehand. There is a certain sense among some Catholics that have been indoctrinated in such a manner against our Holy Father that they will never forgive or accept him. I think this has been a creeping element for the past several years among certain players within popular conservative Catholic news outlets, who are intent on equating him with the Man of Sin. I'm glad that you can see past this blind hatred against the true successor of St. Peter. Remember, it is the Holy Father who is Satan's central focus of attack in the vision of Zech 3/prophecy of Pope Leo XIII, and this comes largely in form of false accusations. I totally agree with Jason in this matter, in that the opposition to this papacy is largely political in nature, from far right-wing groups.
I did warn against this (right wing/fundamentalist/loon types) a few posts back Emmett....
Theres a real deep vein of this on the MotherOfGod site too.
Very judgemental.
Unfortunately, we cannot dismiss them outright, they have just as much right to be heard. My skin crawls though when I recall that the vast majority are prophecised follow the wrong group...
Meanwhile back at the Prophecies, heres my take; the rebuke will happen this month/6 weeks.
What form it will take or how it will happen I dont know. It may be the death of Francis.
A series of global events will overshadow/distract from the 'silly legalese nonsense' happening in the Catholic Church. All eyes will be on the big event/s while the real war/issue will be in the Church.
My current (and subject to change at a moments notice) view is that something will happen to Francis and there will be doubt/disagreement about his successor - an incomplete conclave (1/3 of stars fall from the sky). The 3 days of darkness is the delay in appointing a new Pope which coincides with a war (it might even be the point of the war).
The monarch will arise sometime in the next month too, but I dont think he'll emerge into public consciousness for another few years yet.
My tuppence worth....
[The] religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
(Lumen gentium 25)
Emmett, religious submission has a special meaning. And it is only applies to the common teaching of the Church or to applications of that teaching to current circumstances, not to deviations from that teaching (which is the problem seen with AL). Moreover, when it refers to statements, doctrine, and manner of speaking, it does not mean footnotes, interviews on airplanes, and ad hoc remarks. You have to know some eccclesiology here, and some context and history of these things - sort of like canon law. You are saying that the pope cannot err when speaking non-infallibly. That is false, self-contradictory in fact. As a matter of fact, all of those things are not part of any sort of magisterium, but are simply part of the pope's private opinions. Be very very careful about declaring people in schism.
Even if someone did dissent from a teaching requiring religious submission of mind and will that would not place them "in schism." It would be an error in Catholic doctrine. This is sloppy use of language. Not that Francis has (as far as I can see) imposed any of his troublesome statements even with this degree of authority. The real problem is his failure to teach clearly and clarify when doubts have arisen. By the way, plenty of people in traditional circles are very critical of captialism et al as am I. It tends to be the standard conservatives in America (I am not an American) that have had difficulty with his papacy (such people like Weigel Royal) who might fit into that camp. But you can't use the same lazy tactic to dismiss all criticism (though I agree there is plenty of over the top criticism).
RC You're incredibly gracious in turning the other cheek when I probably don't deserve that kind of kindness... you're a very good person :) I'm going to make my very best effort that if I disagree with anyone, that I will debate fairly and with love in my heart.
My Irish is pretty limited to a few phrases my wife taught me (she's originally from Mountmellick in Laois), so this one might not be completely appropriate but it's the best one I've got, so thank you again, and oíche mhaith agus codladh sámh.
p.s. And go raibh maith agat, too, Emmett, in seeing the point I was trying to make as well.
Emmet, thank you for our kind words.
Unfortunately, I am to blame, not really conservative news outlets, above all for my lack of charity and humility. Who am I to throw stones at the Holy Father?
I failed to realize how pride (intellectual and spiritual pride) has affected my soul and spoiled my efforts to attain a spiritual childhood.
God bless us. St Michael, pray for us and protect us in this battle.
G.
@MightyRighty/
I fear you might be right as far as the impending death of Pope Francis, especially since he may be visiting Israel again soon, with would definitely fit in with the prophecy posted about a pope being martyred or otherwise dying in Jerusalem.
http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Report-Jerusalem-Vatican-in-talks-on-pope-visit-to-Israel-493924
Emmett, I'm concerned that you and Jason are attempting to undermine the objections in the filial correction by labeling them as right-winged traditionalists. There is no merit to this claim. Be careful against committing libel. If we desire to seek the truth then we must discard the murky view through a political lens. I also don't think the signers of the filial correction desire a schism nor do I think they desire for him to be deposed as you suggest.
Respectfully, Anonymous, I disagree with you; I have seen online how many right-wing political groups have had open contempt for Pope Francis since day one, and have been looking for any chance to bring him down. There is absolutely merit to this claim, the evidence has been overwhelming for it in fact. I made a point of writing that I don't think everyone who is against Pope Francis is of this group, but I have zero doubt that a great many are, and there is nothing libelous about pointing this out. If you don't see how manner small-c "conservatives" have been against him because he has focused on the social doctrine of the Church, all I can say is I don't think you've been paying attention.
I don't have a dog in this fight, most of this stuff is over my head, but I've got to agree with Emmett and Jason R. that I've seen that right-wing fundamentalists have hated the pope as soon as he was voted in because he wasn't the cardinal they wanted, and have read him called The False Prophet, the Antichrist, an anti-Pope, and so on, for years now, way before this latest thing.
Greg G.
You all should go to this link and read this: Yes, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yes-amoris-laetitia-303-really-undermines-catholic-moral-teaching-scholar?utm_content=buffera5b0e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
"Fr. J" I know who you are. Your "voice" is quite clear to me. Please pray for me. Why don't you contact me directly? I have your letter. I did not quite enjoy that quote from Revelation calling down curses upon my head. Sounds more like witchcraft. Not very fitting of a good man of the cloth! That's why I deleted that certain post of yours. I forgive you though, can you forgive me in return? I can leave several reviews of your work, in return for your fine review of mine. I know your theories about Simon Magus, you must find him intriguing. Fits in with the material heresy of Joachim of Fiore concerning the "dual antichrist", which you ascribe to (only Blessed Joachim wasn't aware that it was heresy, unlike you). If a man of the cloth is aware of being in heresy, what does that make him? Formal? I wasn't sure, until now.
Given my few little criticisms on this topic I do want to emphasis that I've really enjoyed Emmett's work overall and I loved reading the 2nd edition of Unveiling the Apocalypse.
Thanks Aquinas3000! I appreciate that very much. I have taken your criticisms on board btw! I need them!
The victory of Lepanto was on a SUNDAY 1°OCTOBER 1571...coincidence?
I agree with Mary P here.
Are any of the signers of the correction part of this conspiratorial right wing group? Or do the objections to AL stand on their own?
Aquinas3000, yes perhaps I was a little harsh there with Mary P, and I offer my apologies to you Mary, if I was mistaken in thinking that you were using your various postings to support the idea that Pope Francis is the False Prophet of Revelation/Man of Sin. It just that I have seen it so often now, I'm used to jumping to the assumption that people are using this logic to entice others into open schism. Remember, the papal antichrist idea that started in the Middle Ages in the writings of Joachim of Fiore ultimately resulted in the Protestant Reformation.
An extremely interesting development coming out of Rome today, the Pope has appointed Cardinal Burke as a member of the apostolic signatura, three years after removing Cardinal Burke as it's prefect!?! Are we moving towards dialogue or a case of keep your friends close your enemies closer? Very very interesting.
Link to the National Catholic Register :
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/some-basic-questions-and-answers-on-the-filial-correction-of-the-pope
Excellent article written by a theologian at Stuebenville. Very well written, point by point, without rancor or emotion. Basically agrees with Emmett's point of view and gives clear, concise reasons why. It's helped my understanding of coming to the same conclusion. I strongly recommend it.
rose
Emmett, could you please explain better how the natural phenomena/disasters that have taken place have been pointing the the filial correction? Before that came out, we seemed to focus on how America was being warned. The earthquakes in Mexico leading closer and closer to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe also seemed to invoke the Patroness of the Unborn as a warning to America for its crime of abortion. Everything is so multilayered, so I'm sure this still holds true and is significant for the U.S., but does it make sense now that Our Lady of Guadalupe was being invoked right before Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope, was accused? Supposedly the earthquake that hit Mexico City on the 23rd had a 6.2 magnitude. (couldn't help but equate that with the 62 signatures on the filial correction)
I read a couple articles about Pope Francis' special devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe.
https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/14/pope-francis-love-affair-with-our-lady-of-guadalupe/
(P.S. harking back to the significance of the number 13, I didn't realize there were 13 figures reflected in the her eyes on the tilma!)
http://www.romereports.com/en/2016/12/10/the-importance-of-our-lady-of-guadalupe-to-pope-francis/
"Pope Francis set an example in Mexico by praying before the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe for about 25 minutes. On the plane coming back to Rome, he revealed to journalists what he prayed for. POPE FRANCIS Feb. 18, 2016 "I have asked for the world, for peace ... Many things. She is probably tired of all of my prayers. I have asked for forgiveness. I have asked the Church to grow healthy and for the Mexican people. Another thing I have asked is that priests are true priests, nuns true nuns, bishops true bishops, as the Lord wishes. I have asked a lot. But things that a son tells his mother are secret, right?â? "
P.S. to my most recent post.
Franciscan University of Ohio is considered a conservative college. Interesting that it's Franciscan!
rose
The "right wing groups" (aka Neocons) that have contempt for Pope Francis are ironically the same ones that buy into Jason R's mistaken view that Russia is the boogeyman and will overrun Europe. Isn't it interesting then that it was Pope Francis and Vladimir Putin who, some years ago, stopped Obama and the Neocons' dead in their tracks when Obama was pushing for an overt war with the Christian-protecting Assad early on in the Syrian "civil war." It is also Pope Francis who understands that Team Neocon is pushing for regime change in Venezuela and across South America. The thing about Pope Francis is, just when you think you have him figured out, he goes and surprises you with the manner in which he can't be neatly folded into any one ideological box. But I do think the time has come for our Holy Father to dispel and clarify any doubts and questions that have been raised by his critics. I think many Catholics are genuinely confused about who and what to believe anymore.
Wow!! In an interview with Edward Pentin, Cardinal Muller says “People Working in the Curia Are Living in Great Fear”
[Cardinal Müller:] "Careerists and opportunists should not be promoted, and other people who are competent collaborators not excluded without any reason or expelled from the Curia. It’s not good. I heard it from some houses here, that people working in the Curia are living in great fear: If they say one small or harmless critical word, some spies will pass the comments directly to the Holy Father, and the falsely accused people don’t have any chance to defend themselves. These people, who are speaking bad words and lies against other persons, are disturbing and disrupting the good faith, the good name of others whom they are calling their brothers.
The Gospel and the words of Jesus are very strong against those who denounce their brothers and who are creating this bad atmosphere of suspicion. I’ve heard that nobody speaks; everyone is a little afraid because they can be snitched on. It’s not the behavior of adult people, but that of a boarding school.
[Edward Pentin:] One senior Church figure, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, called it a “reign of terror.”
[Cardinal Müller:] It’s the same in some theological faculties — if anybody has any remarks or questions about Amoris Laetitia, they will be expelled, and so on. That is not maturity. A certain interpretation of the document’s Footnote 351 cannot be criteria for becoming a bishop. A future bishop must be a witness to the Gospel, a successor of the apostles, and not only someone who repeats some words of a single pastoral document of the Pope without a mature theological understanding. […]
[Edward Pentin:] Regarding Amoris Laetitia and the fear of criticizing it, and the lack of response to the dubia, isn’t the irony that it goes against the Pope’s wish for parrhesia (to speak boldly and frankly) and dialogue?
[Cardinal Müller:] Everyone who becomes bishop, cardinal or pope must learn to distinguish between the critics who are against the person and critics against the mission you have. The Holy Father, Francis, must know that it is important one accepts his intention: to help those people who are distant from the Church, from the belief of the Church, from Jesus Christ, who wanted to help them. … This discussion is not against him, it is not against his intentions, but there is need of more clarification. Also, in the past, we had discussions about the faith and the pastoral application of it. It’s not the first time this has happened in the Church, and so why not learn from our long experiences as Church, to have a good, profound discussion in promoting the faith, the life of the Church and not to personalize and polarize? It’s not a personal criticism of him, and everybody must learn it and respect his high responsibility. It is a very big danger for the Church that some ideological groups present themselves as the exclusive guardians of the only true interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. They feel they have the right to condemn all people of another standpoint as stupid, rigid, old-fashioned, medieval, etc. Nobody can, for example, say Cardinal Caffarra didn’t understand anything of moral theology. Sometimes the un-Christian behavior is printed in L’Osservatore Romano, the semi-official Vatican newspaper, or given in official organs of the media, to make polemics and rhetoric. This cannot help us in this situation — only a profound theological discussion will."
@Anon 18:53
You say I'm wrong, yet the last time you posted on Russia you parroted 3 provable falsehoods from Russian state media because you didn't bother to check any secondary sources, all of which I addressed directly: the timing of the Russian military exercise being in response to a build-up of NATO forces on its borders (that was false, it was a regularly planned exercise which is done every 4 years), that NATO had had a massive military build up on Russian borders unprecedented since Germany at the start of Operation Barbarossa (it hadn't, NATO had a total of 8,000 troops as tripwires, comparing that to Germany's 3.3 million men when they invaded the Soviet Union during the Second World War was ridiculous, and even during the Cold War NATO regularly had 300k to 500k on the borders with the Warsaw Pact nation), and that the elected gov't of Ukraine was neo-Nazi (it isn't, the neo-Nazi parties got absolutely trounced in the elections)... so so much for your credibility. And you neglected to even address or correct yourself when proven that you were spouting falsehoods churned out by RT and Sputnik, or that Russia had signed a treaty in exchange for Ukraine giving up her nuclear armaments with the US and UK as well that they would respect the then borders of Ukraine as inviolable (again, something you neglected to answer).
As well, as with all of these things I also previously wrote that there are an undeniably large amount of Catholic prophecies that allude to a Russian invasion of Europe at some point, so (again, as I wrote before), they are at the very, absolute least a country to watch carefully. I would have just copied and pasted all of this since you never did respond, but I thought I'd re-write it for a final time. I hope you learned a lesson at least not to rely solely on Kremlin news-sources and to fact-check before parroting what they have to say, rather than be left with egg on your face.
I might as well share again the link to the EU-run website which counters the Kremlin's routine disinformation (and in anticipation of the EU being called part of a NWO/Neo-con/, I'll remind that Pope Francis has spoken out strongly in favour of a much more vigourous European Union to which countries should be willing to yield a large part of their national sovereignty to):
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/
p.s. I'm not interested in going round and round with you on this; all I can say is, again, I hope you are checking sources better before sharing false information, and accept that Catholic prophecy has much to say about Russia still yet to come.
To Mark W., thank you again for the recommendation to read "The Bones of St. Peter"; I just finished it and enjoyed it immensely. When I think back just those few week ago of seeing that strongly resembled a purple cloth billowing in the Northern Lights, all that has passed since then makes that sign seem like a real foreshadowing, and I never would have made the connection without your book recommendation, so thanks again!
One of the things I find hard to reconcile is that Our Lord was forgiving, and told sinners to repent and sin no more, the people Pope Francis extends mercy to are not repentant (to my knowledge, but how would I know?) and then they go on propagating abortion, population control, Marxism etc. Remember it was Our Lady who warned about the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world and that was in 1917 (communist revolution). Viva Cristo Rey!
I am very disappointed that you have come down on the side of the evil being thrust upon the Church. Emmett, you have got this all wrong. I think that you have put all your hopes in your idea that Jorge Bergolio is the holy pope of some prophecies. I won't be stopping by as much now, but if I do I hope you will have seen the light.
It's too bad that you've chosen to throw the baby out with the bathwater so-to-speak because of Emmett posting *one* opinion that you don't agree with (I'd think dialogue would be more constructive)... but I guess time and the events to come will settle the matter, hopefully like Emmett wrote with a great Ecumenical Council.
I have to add even though I agree with Emmett's post completely, I don't think folks who don't are "coming down on the side of evil", even folks like you that can't seem to even bring themselves to call the Holy Father Pope Francis... I'd consider that deeply misguided, but inferring that anyone is evil, or siding with evil, that's a little over the top, don't you think?
p.s. What are people's thoughts on what is going to happen in Spain tomorrow? I'm concerned that it could lead to a civil war, a revolution, or a terrorist group similar to the FLQ we had in Quebec forming in Catalonia.
Yes, I've been thinking about Catalonia too Jason. It's a case of interest to anyone from my neck of the woods. Hopefully things will go smoothly.
Anonymous, since the Counter Reformation, it has been a constant teaching practice of the Church that even the fallible portions of the papal magisterium cannot err in matters of faith and morals (which again is quite different to papal infallibility - I hate to keep pointing this out, but it seems not everyone understands this). They can make some poor, and even terrible judgements, but even such pronouncements cannot stand in contradiction to faith and morals. I put my trust in the Catholic Faith, and in the Rock that it is built on. If we are to reject this understanding of the papal charism, then it leads us to reject the vast majority of the constant teaching of the Church. Not everything can be defined infallibly, and the pope is not an oracle, but he cannot lead the flock into error in matter of faith and morals in his public magisterium. We had some truly evil popes, and even they could not do this, which is a miracle in itself.
RC, I'm glad that the Holy Father has started showing respect to Cardinal Burke. I think he was dead wrong to ignore him altogether, and has mistreated him in many respects.
If anyone here disagrees with me, that's fine. I keep telling people here that I constantly make mistakes. This is just a blog that I keep as a hobby, and these opinions are simply my own musings. Sometimes I rush out blog posts without properly thinking things through, and I have some regrets with portions of this one, which I will correct (thanks Aquinas 3000!). I don't really care about towing the line to keep followers happy, I'm not a sycophant. I'm not a cult leader either, and I am more than open to being corrected myself - which I thing stands true with the way I allow open criticisms here in the com-box. I will delete comments that are offensive personally to me though, and anyone being uncharitable to others is not welcome, since this is unchristian behaviour. We all need to keep praying for the Holy Father, as the Shepherd Children constantly implored us. We certainly do not have the authority to judge him.
Can someone possibly explain the difference between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" magisterium? For that matter, can anyone recommend some good reading material about the hierarchy and how it operates? My older siblings learned a lot of that stuff in school, but it had been dropped from the curriculum by the time I reached that level; I'm just starting to learn some of this stuff on my own now.
That is precisely what I'm trying to determine myself at the minute,what I'm reading I fear is slightly over my head and I may be horribly wrong on it,looks to me like one of the most complex principles I've ever tried to wrap my meagre mind around! From what I can gather extraordinary is based on the Divine word of God based on scripture? This in itself is drawing me to believe, and I will stand corrected if Im wrong here, but i'm leading myself to believe that I'm not bound to assent to something which does not have the universality of teaching amongst the bishops, i.e on Amoris Latetia there is quite clearly differences betwenn the bishops on this, i.e Germany, Argentina and Malta interpret one way, Poland the other??
I had huge questions myself on these areas and I was hoping one of the many excellent posters on here could shed some light??
Are we bound to the magesterium of a particular pontificate during the course of it's particular life span, does a current pontificates magesterium bound us over all previous magesterium that went before? Then if the next pontificate seems to contradict the previous are we to submit to that? and on and on etc? Does Amoris Latetia supercede Familiaris consortis? If one papal document seems to differ from another which one do I assent or submit to? I personally believe the Holy Father could end all of this if he simply answered the dubia, after all the Pope and the bishops should be the compentent persons in such matters. A debate that will rumble on I fear 😞
http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html
"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
(Lumen gentium 25a)
Afternoon Emmett, yes the treatment of the Cardinal was suprising and to be honest was one of the many things the Holy Father did that was setting alarm bells off in my head, Cardinal Burke was widely recognised in the Church as being a canon lawyer of some repute, yet he was removed from the signatura?? Then it seems when he gave advice to the order of Malta regarding their error in distributing contraceptive, the Pope then intervened it seems in favour of the reinstatement of von boeschlager???
Having said all that i am coming down on the side of cautious optimism that The Pope is recognising the legitimate concern and fears of his own flock and is reaching out to those representing the fears. To his credit the Pope seems to be very open to dialogue with the orthodox as seen by Cardinal Parolins recent visit to Russia, we should always remember though that the orthodox are in error and any unification should be on their acceptance of their own errors, thus in the interests of peace among His own flock Francis needs to address the fears of his own sheep in the way he shows such openess to other Christian denominations.
Help out a very intellectually restricted man here Emmett, im sure your getting mighty fed up here but who do i adhere to with a religious assent... The german bishops or the Polish bishops??
Jason asks what is going to happen in Spain tomorrow. Hopefully, Catalonia will be allowed its independence and Team Soros and the Spanish globalists will be defeated. It seems unlikely though. It seems that the globalists are prepared to use violence against Catalonia. If there is one thing the globalists on both the Left and Right will not permit, it is secession from their death grip on power. That's why its so sad to see Trump, who was elected as an anti-establishment candidate, so quickly embrace the Neocon, globalist agenda especially in terms of foreign policy. It seems that everywhere you look for honest leadership in the once Christian West, you find nothing but Freemasons, on both the Left and Right. No wonder that the Freemason-run West hates Putin and Russia so much. Putin kicked the Freemasons and other leeches out of Russia for good. I always wondered why Our Lady singled out Russia for conversion. Now I know why. All I have to do is turn on the TV and watch the endless demonization of all things Putin and Russia by the Freemasons on the Left and the Right, and I realize that Our Lady was successful in her mission to convert Russia. Russia stands alone against the Freemason Beast and will be the instrument of chastisement on a wicked, wicked West.
I haven't commented here before, so let me say at the outset that your blog Emmett has been immensely interesting and informative and I greatly appreciate it.
Also I will admit that my knowledge of some of the matters discussed here is a mere shadow compared to that of many regular commenters.
I have been disturbed at the general direction of the church under Pope Francis, but also have felt the need to be cautious at this stage. One thing that did dismay me during the earlier comments was the characterization of opposition to Pope Francis as "right wing" and ultra conservative. I came across this article which some might be aware of describing the priestly opposition to Humanae Vitae in Baltimore in 1968.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/humanae-vitae/the-year-of-the-peirasms-1968
Just recently Emmett himself described two phases of Satan's effort to destroy the Catholic Church, war in the first 50 years and moral corruption, in other words the sexual revolution in the second 50 years with 1962 as the middle. Perhaps that should be 1968 Emmett in light of the article above and your earlier article about Mary's apparition in Egypt and the legalization of abortion.
The point I am making is that the sexual revolution had the most immediate and corrosive effect on the church as the later child abuse scandals would show. Contraception, divorce, homosexuality, sexual permissiveness, adultery, abortion and the destruction of sacramental marriage and family dissolution are all of a piece. They are all interconnected and inter-dependent.
The only institution in the whole western world standing against these has been the Catholic church. I strongly suspect without the opposition of the Catholic church the Protestant churches would have been powerless to stop even more radical changes and more widespread manifestations of moral corruption than we have already witnessed in the last 60 odd years.
I predict that opposition to Francis will be quite a small group and the church as a whole will fall in behind him, and I think changes would then come thick and fast once the wall has been breached. Changes which will effectively bring the Catholic church in line with a sexually permissive society. This would be Satan's victory and the ultimate destruction of the true faith.
It may well be part of God's plan, and ultimately bring on chastisement or the apocalypse but there is really no excuse for not seeing where Francis's actions will lead, and not recognizing that the sexual revolution has destroyed the faith of millions and led to a holocaust of unborn infants being killed.
Patrick
RC, your religious assent is required to the papal magisterium of our current pontiff, Pope Francis. Only trained theologians can withhold religious assent to any certain specific aspect of the ordinary non-infallible magisterium they perceive an issue with, but they must have good reason for doing so, and keep their opinions private, so as not to lead the faithful into confusion (see Donum Veritatis). How this Apostolic Exhortation is implemented is up to the various bishop's conferences around the world, which the Holy Father has deemed prudent so as not to impose it on any particular culture that would find it particularly objectionable. For example, certain African countries will be more opposed to it, so their bishop's conferences might choose to key it more low-key, or interpret it differently. But we know that his "manifest mind and will" favours the interpretation offered by the Argentinian bishop's conference.
"Does Amoris Latetia supercede Familiaris consortis?"
Answer: Yes, the ordinary magisterium changes all the time, according to meet specific needs of specific times. Both documents contain the same level of teaching authority, but now AL has superseded that. And another one in the future will supersede AL. It is certainly within the purview of the Holy Father to change the application of pastoral discipline, which is a matter of priestly obedience. For example, he could do away with priestly celibacy in a single stroke tomorrow, and it would be well within his right to do so as Sovereign Pontiff. He can never change doctrine or dogma, or alter Scripture. But the papal magisterium retains the right to interpret Scripture, as Divine Revelation has not been fully revealed.
"If one papal document seems to differ from another which one do I assent or submit to?"
Answer: Always the current pontificate. And when that changes, the one after that, and so on...
"Can someone possibly explain the difference between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" magisterium?"
JMC, the above quote in Lumen Gentium explains the ordinary non-infallible magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium is infallible, and is only ever exercised in very limited circumstances, either when the pope is speaking ex cathedra to declare a dogma, for example, or through the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils
It's immensely easier just to give submission of the will and intellect to the magisterium, rather than trying to understand all this complex stuff. But then, when such confusion arises, the faithful are required to examine their Faith in more depth.
Thank you everyone, especially Emmett and RC, for your help on my question, and RC, for the reading material. Things are a bit clearer for me now.
- JMC
In 1969, the future Pope Benedict XVI, then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, wrote that criticizing papal statements was not only possible, but even necessary, to the extent that the pope might deviate from the Deposit of Faith and the Apostolic Tradition. Pope Benedict XVI included these remarks in his 2009 anthology of his writings Fede, ragione, verità e amore:
"One should especially avoid the impression that the pope (or the office in general) can only gather and express from time to time the statistical average of the living faith, for which a decision is not possible contrary to these average statistical values (which, besides, are problematic in their verifiability).
The faith is based on the objective data of Scripture and of dogma, which in dark times can also frighteningly disappear from the consciousness of the greater part of Christianity (statistically), without losing in any way, however, their obligatory and binding character.
In this case, the word of the pope can and should certainly go against statistics and against the power of an opinion, which strongly pretends to be the only valid one; and this will have to be done as decisively as the testimony of tradition is clear (like in the given case).
On the contrary, criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church.
When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor clear evidence from the sources is available, an ultimate binding decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and hence the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy."
> It's immensely easier just to give submission of the will and intellect to the magisterium, rather than trying to understand all this complex stuff.
I had to laugh at this. Amen, Emmett!
It's true. I think of what Our Lady said in the MMP: "Unless you return to the simplicity of children and leave behind your intellectual pride you will continue in darkness." That is a paraphrase but what you said above is a theme she (allegedly) speaks of frequently in the MMP messages.
She says often, "Only those who remain with the Pope will not fall into error."
Again and again my heart hears the words of Our Lord: "Because of the increase in lawlessness the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24.12).
This, I think, is a warning to us. Our love grows cold when lawlessness increases, because we want more sternness, more condemnation, more criticism. So the devout, ironically, are in danger, like Jonah, of sitting under a tree and wanting to see fire fall from the sky to devour Nineveh. I often hear people say "what the world needs is chastisement." No! This is not scriptural. What the world needs is more Abrahams who, when he learned what the Lord had planned for Sodom, didn't say "Yes Lord - do it!" but rather pleaded incessantly that Sodom be SPARED. And in Luke 9.54 Jesus chastised James & John for wanting to call down fire from heaven. I'm sure they said, "but it's what they need Lord, they need shaken up." No. What they needed was mercy. Just like Sodom, just like today.
"Let them say, 'Spare your people O Lord!'" (Joel 2.17)
I think this is the deepest spiritual reason behind the attacks on Pope Francis. They don't think that the message of mercy is what is needed, they think warnings of hell are needed, not warnings about the climate. It is perfectly understandable, after all, how can it not be shocking to hear about our crimes against the planet but not crimes against the unborn? That truly is surprising to me. But I think the faithful are being tested mightily in our day. God is looking into our hearts and separating bone from marrow. Given the chance, would we call down fire from the sky, thinking it is an act of mercy to chastise the world in that way? All the Pharisaical tendencies in our hearts are being exposed.
The good in us will get better, the evil in us will get worse. (cf. 2 Timothy 3.13)
Mark L.
Terrific insight, Mark. Very well said.
RAtzinger: On the contrary, criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church.
When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor clear evidence from the sources is available, an ultimate binding decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and hence the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy."
Anonymous Mark L said...
> It's immensely easier just to give submission of the will and intellect to the magisterium, rather than trying to understand all this complex stuff.
The problem is that it appears that the unofficial magisterium of this pope appears to be in conflict with the official magisterium of the Church through the ages.
I frequently admire Emmett's scholarship & insights but
this is quite possibly the worst and most baseless post that has been written to date on this pontificate.
Firstly, the filial correction, dated on the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel was hand delivered to Pope Francis on the Feast of St Clare & having received no response, published on the Feast of Our Lady of Walsingham (Our Lady of Ransom).
The filial (as opposed to fraternal) correction was not signed by any cardinal because none were privy to the document.
A number of other factual errors are present which others may have already corrected here, but I can only conclude that the opinions of the author have been biased, not by fidelity to the perennial Magisterium, but the undue weight given to the prophesy of Bl. Tomasuccio de Foligno, which was discovered in the late 19th Century.
Familiarity with Church approved private revelation can be beneficial, but it is unnecessary for close observers of the Church at the present time to need to reflect upon private revelation to know the source & scale of this unprecedented crisis.
Mary P, there is no such thing as an unofficial magisterium. Only trained theologians can withhold assent to any particular aspect of the non-infallible magisterium, and must do so in private. It is not up to the laity to challenge the magisterium or withhold assent.
Thanks for the compliment anon above. According to the rules outlaid by the CDF document Donum Veritatis, the filial correction should never have been made public, so it appears to be illicit.
"In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth." (Donum Veritatis 30)
Perhaps I do give undue weight to the prophecy of Bl. Tomasuccio de Foligno. Time will tell as the future runs its course. I tend to lend it more credence because I was writing about just the month before Pope Benedict XVI abdicated, and a few months previously before that, and then we had a papal election in March 2013. It doesn't really matter if Pope Francis is the Worthy Shepherd or not, we still have to give assent to his magisterium.
"Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it." (CCC 892)
It's good to see you back here Mark L! Bravo!
Anon above, we would not be in such a crisis if we trusted that the barque of St. Peter will not sink by giving religious assent to the ordinary magisterium, and knowing that the Holy Spirit guides, protects and nurtures the Church. We need not panic, and should trust in Christ's words. The gates of Hell will never prevail.
I've taken a number of criticisms on board, and have updated this post again to address the particular concerns that have been highlighted. I offer my sincerest apologies to anyone whose offense I have earned. This is a particularly emotive issue in these times of confusion, as I'm sure everyone will agree.
On the same day your article was posted, there was also this, which answers many of the questions/issues raised here: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/09/28/can-a-pope-commit-heresy-heresy-defined/
Keep up the good work, Emmett!
Emmett,
I think that you have handled this situation as well as anyone I've seen on the internet. You are really displaying charity toward those who disagree, sometimes vehemently. You're willing to offer updates and corrections. I admire what you are doing.
Also, as I have said before, I think your book (which I highly recommend) and site are excellent sources of informed speculation.
hi
Emmett, have you read the text of the filial correction? Have you read Amoris Letitia? Have you noted clearly heretical statements, including the denial of the eternity of punishment in the document? One doesn't have to be a traditionalist to be seriously concerned about the direction of this papacy, including the promotion of Modernist prelates, such as Cardinal Cupich, and the shielding of open homosexuals in the Vatican. I think you are very far off base in this article. You often give me food for thought, but in this I think you must be very careful. This Pope, in my opinion, is not orthodox in his teaching.
https://www.sign.org/articles/100-year-reign-satan-begin
When Did the 100-Year Reign of Satan Begin?
chris
Defending a heretic.
I know some of the Argentines Catholics that signed that letter. I would take religious advice from Jack Chick before listening to them. I don't claim to know what is going on. I am as confused as anyone but I know God is in control, I know God is good, I know He is a benefactor, and I know He loves His people. I pray, I hope, and I don't plan to worry.
El falso profeta es Bergog-lio
SÍNODO MASÓNICO AMAZÓNICO
EL LIBRO DE LA VERDAD
www.jesushabla.org
Segunda Venida de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo
EL SELLO DEL DIOS VIVO
Verdader papá Benedicto XVI
Bergog-lio el falso profeta
EL LIBRO DE LA VERDAD
www.jesushabla.org
Segunda Venida de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo
EL SELLO DEL DIOS VIVO
Post a Comment