Tuesday 3 October 2017

Can a Pope Teach Heresy in his Ordinary Magiserium?

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:18-19)

In the wake of the publication of the Filial Correction on 24th September, 2017, many Catholics have been left in a state of deep confusion as to whether a validly elected Roman Pontiff can teach heresy as part of his Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is found in the day to day teachings of the Holy Father, issued through various encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, apostolic exhortations, etc., and although this particular exercise of the papal office is fallible in nature, and certain deficiencies may be present, all Catholics are bound to give their religious assent (the submission of will and intellect) to whatever is contained in the Ordinary Magisterium. This is distinct from the more binding assent of faith which is required for infallible pronouncements such as dogmas, or the contents of Sacred Scripture. As the Catechism states, there is a special Divine assistance given which protects the pope from teaching any errors which contradict faith or morals in the Ordinary Magisterium itself - a charism which is to be considered quite separately from the doctrine of papal infallibility, which is only very rarely exercised through ex cathedra pronouncements, or through the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, etc. As the Catechism states:

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)

One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. (Donum Veritatis 17)

So while there may be certain deficiencies present in the Ordinary Magisterium, the faithful are still required to submit their will and intellect to its higher prudential judgment by giving religious assent, and such deficiencies can never fall into error in matters of faith and morals through the promise of Divine assistance accorded to even these non-infallible pronouncements. As Lumen Gentium 25 states:

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.

In the CDF document Donum Veritatis, a special dispensation is given for trained theologians to withhold their religious assent from certain aspects of the Ordinary Magisterium they perceive to be potentially problematic, so that they can bring their findings and objections before the Magisterium for study and reflection. However, Donum Veritatis states that such non-assent should always be conducted privately, so as not to lead the faithful into confusion, and any dissenting theologians are instructed to avoid presenting their objections before the mass media:

"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)

So since the authors of the Filial Correction have turned directly to the mass media in order to present their dissent to Amoris Laetitia (which is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of Pope Francis), this action was made in direct contravention of the guidelines for dissenting theologians outlaid in Donum Veritatis, and should therefore be considered illicit.

In banding together to form a "parallel-magisterium" which aims to "correct" the Ordinary Magisterium of Pope Francis, the authors of the Filial Correction have brought about a great source of confusion and harm to the faithful.

As to the "parallel magisterium", it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping; a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority. (Donum Veritatis 34)

Polling public opinion to determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a "consensus" among theologians, maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a "base" or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth, all this indicates a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church. The Church "is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men". Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the "leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit" to start to work. (Donum Veritatis 39-40)

This false accusation railed against Pope Francis, claiming that he is teaching  or promoting heresy in part of his Ordinary Magisterium is in effect a denial of the one of the essential truths behind the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, who is granted Divine assistance which prevents him from erring in matters of faith and morals, even when teaching non-infallibly. If we are to reject this essential truth, then the entire edifice of Catholic theology comes crashing to the ground. Once broken down to its constitute parts, this false accusation amounts to nothing less than a charge of formal heresy against the Pope himself, and cannot be recognized as anything other than an attempt to precipitate some form of schism within the Church, renting apart the seamless garment of Christ.

Lest we forget: "The First See is judged by no one." (Canon 1404)


1 – 200 of 348   Newer›   Newest»
Uriel said...

This is very nice, but it only applies to a - you said it, not me - 'validly elected pope'.

And there are, at a minimum - at a minimum! - serious, serious questions about the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI, it is far from clear that Francis was validly elected.

The very fact that this man has done all of the exercable things he has done, like pulling cardinals off of the altar while they were celebrating the canon of the mass, and taught all the exercable things he has taught, like encouraging people to sin boldly, to eat and drink to their own damnation, to even teach that Our Lord and Savior Himself became the DEVIL -

Well, Occam's razor. "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

Which is easier: to explain away the "Pope"'s many heresies, or to acknowledge that he was NEVER the pope to begin with?

Mark L said...

That is an excellent and informative post, Emmett, thank you. I didn't know some of those things.

You know, I became dismayed when I began seeing books which were once reserved for professional theologians appear in everyday bookstores, as though they were books of normal Catholic spirituality.

For example we saw a veritable profusion of books from scripture scholars using the Historical Critical method make their appearances in Barnes & Noble alongside traditional books of spirituality from the saints. This gave them a wrong appearance, in my view.

So as much respect as I have for the scholarship of Fr. Raymond Brown, for instance, to have those sold as normal books of scripture reflection for the faithful rather than what they are - theology, that is, the "science of God," (emphasis on "science," not "faith") has done enormous harm. All of a sudden we had the Catholic faithful going about saying that the Blessed Virgin had more children. Or, in the case of the massive tomes of Meier's "A Marginal Jew," we had all sorts of doubts injected into the faith which never should have been (no bodily resurrection of Christ, e.g.).

All because many missed, or misunderstood, the tiny sentence in its massive Introduction: "we need to bracket our faith." That simple little act - leaving faith 'aside' - is one which professional theologians learn about in 101 courses. But the layperson doesn't instinctively think that way.

This is in no way to patronize the faithful. But nowadays everyone is an armchair theologian, because everyone has access to all the documents. But that simple separation, that "bracketing of the faith," setting it aside and knowing we aren't speaking about the faith but "just" the science of exegesis, is not something the non-theologian instinctively does.

I was dismayed when I left the seminary and discovered highly specialized books of theology with very specific and distinct purposes used for trained theologians suddenly appearing on bookshelves when they were once reserved for specialists. I have had plenty of people inform me that they now "know" that the virgin birth is a myth, there was no Abraham, and so on and so forth.

"the theologian should avoid turning to the 'mass media'" (DV 30)

There is an old expression: "follow the money." I daresay we could add: "follow the desire to leave a legacy." Fulton Sheen warned us in this regard about the temptation to "make a noise in the world, to become popular and known."

Mark L.

Unknown said...

-Both the Dubias and the formal correction were submitted privately to the Holy Father. Both were ignored. You're way off.
-Card. Mueller and the CDF weren't even permitted to review AL before it was published. Yet it's magisterial?
-How can a Catholic intellectually assent to AL when it directly contradicts JPII's Veritatis Splendor (which is based on the moral tradition of the Church)?

Mr. O'Regan, you simply haven't been paying close enough attention to this pontificate and the crucial issues at stake. Until you're caught up, my advise is to stick to prophecy.

Anthony W said...

To Conor.
This is nonsense to say that there is doubt surrounding the resignation of Pope benedict. Pope benedict resigned, end of story. But then to question the validity of Pope Francis's election when he was voted in by the cardinals in the conclave is just ridiculous.
Please faithful Catholics stand up for our holy Catholic church and pope Francis.

God bless.

Anthony W

Uriel said...

To Anthony.

There is definitely doubt, whether or not you recognize it yourself. You and I may differ on whether it is reasonable doubt; but to deny that there is doubt amongst Catholics is dishonest. In a recent poll sampling over a five hundred Catholics at StLouisCatholic blogsite, these results were returned:


Francis is Pope 16%
Benedict is Pope 72%
Some other person is Pope 1%
No one is Pope 9%


Benedict's abdication was not effective 38%
Francis' election was invalid 5%
Francis has lost his office due to heresy 4%
Some combination of the above 42%
Neither Francis nor Benedict was ever pope 8%

I will now repost my very brief summary of the major points of those who question the validity of Benedicts resignation under Canon 188.

Cont below:

Uriel said...

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.


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 below

Uriel said...

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.

RC said...

The authors of both the correction and dubia are seeking clarity for the faithful like myself, the only people bringing about confusion are bishops conferences who expressly contradict the perennial teaching of the church and dare to defy the commandments of God. The first see is judged by almighty God just like the rest of us. The stench of antinomoism is overpowering

Canon 19: "If anyone shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or that the Ten Commandments in no wise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema."
Canon 20: "If anyone shall say that a man who is justified and how perfect soever is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; as if forsooth, the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema."
Canon 21: "If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men as a Redeemer in whom they should trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey; let him be an anathema."
Canon 27: "If anyone shall say that there is no deadly sin but that of infidelity; or that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save only by that infidelity; let him be anathema."

God is perfection,perfect reason,perfect truth and logic, perfect mercy but mercy is a subset to perfect justice, unfortunately hell exists we cannot sin boldly and justify ourselves by attacking God's laws
the question for communion for manifest adulterers, they must reckon with the clear teachings of John Paul II (Familiaris Consortio 84, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 34), the Catholic Catechism (1650), guidance from the CDF[3], the Code of Canon Law (915, 916) and all this reaffirmed again by Benedict XVI in 2007 in Sacramentum Caritatis 29. One cannot help but be struck by the clarity and force of the words used in these documents in all instances – without exception. These documents teach that, based on Sacred Scripture, it is impossible for the divorced and remarried to receive communion – and that this is “constant and universal practice” of the Church which is called “binding” and which “cannot be modified because of different situations.

A heartbreaking and gutwrenching day when i find myself now not in full communion with the church I have loved my whole life. God does not contradict himself,Christ and the comandments are expressly clear no matter how much people try and twist God's law and teachings to suit the whims and immorality of mankind to indulge themselves in whatever doesn't suit them, be it abortion,divorce and remarriage and sacreligious communion, contracepetion whatever. As a disgusting filthy sinner wrapped with the stench of mortal sin I know that I am in the wrong,I dare not challenge God because life is too difficult for me too live by His law and his command, I recognise God as my creator He has the right to govern His creation by His Laws, not man. Ironic that what the Pope and his advisors are proposing with the false mercy would be a boon to a wretched sinner like me, no, I will not and cannot assent to defying God in recidivism or presumption. I now find myself in schism so please in charity pray for me,pray for others like me, pray much for the church to love and serve God not man with the fidelity owing to Him. God bless each and everyone of you in the confusion that lies ahead,and woth your own personal discernments may God give you the grace to follow Him whether that be Francis or not.

Uriel said...

I think all here can agree that this utterly unprecedented confusion in the Magisterium - even considering the Post-Vatican II era - is either the Passion of the Church, or its prelude. Pray for us that we may all have strength in this tribulation.

God bless you all.

Anonymous said...

We would not be here in the first place if Francis had not been so careless about what he says in public and what the Vatican publishes as doctrine. The faithful are not at fault here. The person who calls himself Pope is. And the cardinals who should be reining him in, are nowhere!

What if tomorrow Francis announces that the Resurrection never took place? Is he still a valid Pope? Do we need to believe that too?

RC said...

Definition of antinomian. 1 :one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace (see 1grace 1a) the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. 2 :one who rejects a socially established morality.

Unknown said...

No, because the Revelation happened. We know the Faith. It's been revealed and taught. And when a Pope contradicts what has been previously taught as truth, he errors. This isn't hard. AL elevates the personal conscience above the objective moral law. Clearly heretical. The fact the laity have to come to the rescue and clean this up is embarrassing. But apparently Mr. O'Regan doesn't care if the Faith conflicts with reason. Just follow the current Pope. This papal positivism is not Catholic.

-Joe B.

Uriel said...

The real pope would not be able to contradict - in the fundamental way we are seeing today - the teachings of Our Lord and Savior.

If A, then B. If B, then C.

If Jesus Christ promised to make Peter his Infallible Rock, against which the gates of hell could not prevail, then the Pope cannot teach error.

If the Pope cannot teach error, then what he says goes. Thus far does Emmett go.

But the 'Pope' is contradicting the teachings of Jesus Christ as promulgated by the Magisterium for thousands of years. Thus far do you go.

Then, since we know this syllogism to be true, then either we don't understand Christ's teachings - which is close to impossible, given the Magisterium's careful guardianship of the deposit of faith - or the 'Pope' is not the real Pope.

And the Pope can't stop being the Pope unless he validly resigns. So the 'Pope' was never Pope to begin with.


Because the Pope who was said to have resigned did not validly resign.

Aloysius Beckett said...

I am VERY disappointed in this post. The fact that you continue to support Pope Francis even though his teachings contradict other magisterial teaching and the words of Jesus Himself discredits you as an authentic teacher. You are smarter than this! If a Pope contradicts magisterial teaching and the teaching of Jesus then he is either 1) not a validly elected Pope 2) he was pope, but by teaching heresy ceased to be Pope, or 3) not intending to teach in a magisterial way. I believe the third is the case. In Amoris itself the Pope says he doesn't intend for this document to be Magisterial. So, why do you keep insisting it is? You obviously have been deluded by the evil one. I beg you, for the sake of your soul, and for the sake of your credibility, to recant your support of the Pope in this matter.

Mark W said...

"In Amoris itself the Pope says he doesn't intend for this document to be Magisterial."


RC said...

...You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

RC said...

Above quote taken from St Athanasius one of the greatest defender's of the faith in history

Uriel said...

Thank you, RC. Something for us all to remember.

RC said...

The last number of lines being particularly pertinent......

After this frightful punishment I saw the heavens opening, and Saint Peter coming down again upon earth; he was vested in his pontifical robes, and surrounded by a great number of angels, who were chanting hymns in his honor, and they proclaimed him as sovereign of the earth. I saw also Saint Paul descending upon the earth. By God's command, he traversed the earth and chained the demons, whom he brought before Saint Peter, who commanded them to return into hell, whence they had come. Then a great light appeared upon the earth which was the sign of the reconciliation of God with man. The angels conducted before the throne of the prince of the Apostles the small flock that had remained faithful to Jesus Christ These good and zealous Christians testified to him the most profound respect, praising God and thanking the Apostles for having delivered them from the common destruction, and for having protected the Church of Jesus Christ by not permitting her to be infected with the false maxims of the world. Saint Peter then chose the new pope. The Church was again organized..." -Venerable Elizabeth Canori-Mora (19th century, Italy)

KEP said...

So theologians are given a special dispensation to disagree with the Pope, eve though the Pope is free from error even when he's not teaching infallibly? Lol. Makes sense.

Vatican I was a dogma. None of the info given here is dogma. Vatican I clearly states that the Pope is only free fron error when speaking ex cathedra. If he was free from error in his ordunary magisterium then there's no reason to distinguish between ex cathedra statements and the ordinary magisterium.

And all of this presumes that Benedict validly stepped down without coercion and Francis was validly elected, which we don't really know yet. There have been dozens of antipopes throughout history, there's nothing special about the year 2013 that meant it couldn't happen then.

KEP said...

My phone is butchering my spelling. Sorry. You get the idea though.

Aquinas3000 said...

I see two problems here. The Correctio may well go too far. However, the main problem is the ambiguity. You are assuming these ambiguous statements (and the fact they are not clear and the Pope has failed to clear up the confusion is the whole problem here) constitute part of his ordinary magisterium. Not everything, even in a document issued by the Pope automatically constitutes his ordinary magisterium. That's why LG has a list of criteria. There are plenty of sentences in encyclicals, papal documents etc which are not magisterial per se.

Secondly it makes no sense to say a Pope can't err in his non infallible statements. If that were the case they wouldn't be... well, non infallible. I have seen other people point out this is a contradiction in terms but it seems to require repeating.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Aquinas3000 - the short answer is he cannot err in matters of faith and morals in the fallible ordinary magisterium, but can make mistakes in other areas. This is why some theologians are given a special dispensation from full assent. There are going to be some mistakes in it.

RC not giving full assent doesn't place you in open schism. There is some canonical censure for this. But it is not the same as schism, as far as I'm aware.

KEP said...

So the pope can't err in matters of faith or morals in his ordinary magisterium, but can err in other ways. Yet even his extraordinary magisterium ex cathedra statements are also only infallible on faith and morals.

So either way he is infallible on faith and morals, and either way he isn't infallible on anything other than faith and morals.

Lol. C'mon.

This is bordering on papolatry. The Pope is a man capable of sin, error, and even damnation. He's only protected from error when he's binding something infallibly.

I'll stick with the infallible statements if Vatican I. The Pope is only protected from error when making an ex cathedra statement.

KEP said...

So according to Emmett:

Ordinary magisterium= infallible on faith and morals, not infallible on anything outside of faith and morals.

Extraordinary magisterium= infallible on faith and morals, not infallible on anything outside of faith and morals.

They're the same either way. Lol.

Luckily that's not what Vatican I dogmatically taught.

Aquinas3000 said...

Emmett, I disagree. I'm surprised you don't realise the contradiction in your sentence. To say someone "cannot err" in such and such a domain is to say they are infallible. What does it mean to say he is fallible if in the previous breath you have said he cannot err? That's what fallible means - it can err.

In any case, what intelligent critics of Francis are saying is that the passages are ambiguous. They seem to go counter previous teaching but have enough wiggle room. AL also seems to suggest communion for people D&R who have not made a commitment to live as brother and sister. That why there are "dubia" or doubts which have been steadfastly ignored. It also presumes these ambiguous statements actually constitute his ordinary magisterium.

One other note, it is better to speak as LG dose of his authentic magisterium. Ordinary magisterium is a term that can get mixed up with the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (which is infallible.

Emmett O'Regan said...

KEP, before you mock Catholic teachings on papal infallibility and how this differs from the divine assistance given to the ordinary Magisterium, you should really do some more research on this topic. You obviously do not fully grasp this subject. If we only held to the infallible pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium, we would only have to believe in a very few things. It's not me you are mocking, it is the teachings of the Church, which I am merely repeating here.

Emmett O'Regan said...

"Nevertheless, even when the pope does not speak ex cathedra, Vatican II reminded us that, "loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given,...that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincerest assent be given to decisions made by him..." (No. 25). Therefore, when the pope issues a teaching on a moral issue, the Church respects it as a true teaching guided by the Holy Spirit even though it is not technically declared "infallible" and may later undergo further clarification. For instance, our Church has moral teachings on euthanasia and bioethics which provide true guidance to the faithful, but probably will be further clarified—not changed—as the parameters of these issues evolve."
(Fr. William Saunders, EWTN)

RC said...

Just like divorce is settled in the ten commandments in thy shalt not commit adultery so to is euthanasia in thy shalt not kill. How could The Holy Spirit guide a teaching that directly contradicts Christ's words on adultery? Does that mean the man is an antipope? He allows this confusion complicit by his silence, not the dubia cardinals,not the academics and prelates of the correction, the cunning obfuscation of the footnotes in AL are ripping asunder the seamless garment of Christ and it is allowed! or maybe just maybe The Holy Spirit restrains him from openly teaching the heresy against the 6th commandment and the Spotlessness of The Holy Eucharist?

Pope Bendict,2005.....
The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism."

RC said...

Incidentally Emmett, programme on bbc2 at 9pm tonight on the reformation, I'm expecting a hatchet job on the Church but one never knows

Anonymous said...

Dear Emmett, you get points for putting up with the hateful AND IGNORANT comments of those who take it for granted that the truth is whatever they want it to be. Speaking as someone with multiple pontifical degrees, who has written on the insanely complex subject of the Church's teaching office and the weight of various types of documents coming out of the Vatican... you did a good job of explaining how it works.

In contrast, the assertions found in quite a few of the comments you're getting are ridiculously wrong. Brain surgery probably requires less finesse than accurate discussion of the topic of hierarchical authority and the Church's teaching office. It's a shame that people who don't understand the incredibly tricky nuances involved in words like "infallibility" and "magisterium," and the subtleties found in Vatican I's declaration of papal infallibility, are so quick to paint everything with a broad brush, and declare you wrong.

You're not wrong, my friend. That adjective pertains to those who think that "if the Pope says something I don't like, he's a heretic." And there are an awful lot of them out there these days, unable or unwilling to make critical theological distinctions, and quick to hurl mud. They also fail to understand history, and so they will go the way of all the nasty critics of undeniably flawed Popes through the centuries--while the Church marches on.

Terry Nelson said...

I have no pontifical degrees Emmett, but you are definitely not wrong. God bless you for your courage in supporting our Holy Father.

RC said...

I wish I had multiple pontifical degrees 😞

Jason R. said...

For those that seem to be contending that only ex cathedra pronouncements are to be considered authoritative, and considering that since the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican which defined papal infallibility as dogma only one example of an ex cathedra pronouncement has been made (Pope Pius XII's ex cathedra pronouncement of the Assumption of Mary), then what are you inferring about things like Humanae vitae qne Evangelium vitae (with their powerful teaching against abortion, contraception, murder, euthanasia, etc.), or Ordinatio sacerdotalis (that made clear that the priesthood is reserved for men only)? Since these were not ex cathedra pronouncements, are you suggesting that they hold no authority as Magesterial direction from the popes on matters of faith and morals?

If you reject the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, if you suggest that only ex cathedra pronouncements are infallible and authoritative, with so few ex cathedra pronouncements, Catholicism very quickly becomes a faith in which there is very, very little that Catholics are obliged to believe in or to follow; I think that fact alone demonstrates how important it is to also accept the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

But if that thought experiment isn't enough, going back to Humanae vitae and Evangelium vitae as examples; there were not an ex cathedra pronouncements, but they are good cases where I don't think very many faithful Catholics would even dare to question their infallibility based on the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Even the most liberal of Catholic theologians that dearly wish Humanae vitae and Evangelium vitae probably never existed still do not question the authoritative nature of these encyclical. The teachings of these encyclicals are clearly not examples of papal infallibility, but they are an excellent example of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when teaching on faith or morals, and why believing in this other type of infallibility is just as valid as papal infallibility via ex cathedra teachings.

The fact that all this rancour is emerging in the year that marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation is no coincidence. When ordinary Catholics are using such logic as "I think the Pope is a heretic, therefore he must not actually be the Pope" seems very much to echo some of the thinking of those Protestant "reformers".

I pray that a great ecumenical council emerges at the end of the road of all of this (as someone, I can't remember if it was Emmett, suggested). I think Emmett has done a fantastic job of using credible sources such as the Catechism to show that the Pope enjoys a special charism even when not invoking ex cathedra that protects him from error on matters of faith and morals, it feels like those Catholics who do not like Pope Francis are just completely ignoring all of what Emmett has posted supporting the idea that we are obliged to submit our intellect and will to the concept and belief in Petrine/Papal Primacy. I really can't understand how people can't see this, especially with all the information Emmett has provided on the topic. Though I can see a shifting more to the idea that Pope Francis was never pope to begin with with those who object, which shows maybe some of what Emmett has posted is getting through.

Anonymous said...

Pope Pius IV (1499-1565)

"We declare that if ever it should appear that any bishop, even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or Primate, or a Cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, whether prior to his promotion to Cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff, has beforehand deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, we enact, we decree, we determine, we define: Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid, and void. It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, not even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. Such promotion or election shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation be considered even partially legitimate in any way. Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected -- and indeed, whatsoever flows there from -- shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office, and power. Therefore, it is permitted to no one to impair this page of Our approval, renewal, sanction, statute, wills of repeal, of decrees, or to go contrary to it by a rash daring deed. If anyone, moreover, will have presumed to attempt this, he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." -Pope Paul IV (1555-1559), Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio," February 16, 1559, sec. 9

St. Antony of Egypt (251-356)

"Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day's problems. When the Church and the World are one, then those days are at hand. Because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world."
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying: 'You are mad; you are not like us.'"

St. Columba (521-597)

"Hearken, hearken to what will happen in the latter days of the world! There will be great wars; unjust laws will be enacted; the Church will be despoiled of her property; people will read and write a great deal; but charity and humility will be laughed to scorn, and the common people will believe in false ideas.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.", De Romano Pontifice, II.30 [citing passages from Cyprian, Driedonus, and Melchoir Cano in support of his position]

St. Cyprian (200-258)

"To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church."

St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)

"There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissension and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost."

Anonymous said...

Shortly before he died, St. Francis of Assisi called together his followers and warned them of the coming troubles, saying:
1. "The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

2. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death."

St. Antoninus of Florence (1389-1459)

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. "A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622)
Bishop and Doctor of the Church

"Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . ."

St. Alphonsus Liguori, (1696-1787)
Doctor of the Church

"If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate." If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant."

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)

"He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Aquinas3000 said...

There are a few confusions in your post Jason.

Firstly, no intelligent person would say only infallible statements are authoritative. Of course there are other authoritative statements that are non infallible but require assent (strangely Emmett thinks the Pope can't err in such statement which actually means they are infallible not non infallible).

Secondly, certainly the universal and ordinary magisterium is infallible. That is all the bishops of the world together with the Pope teaching something definitively. That is not in question here. In fact its why we should refer to the Pope's non infallible magisterium as "authoritative" as it gets confused with the ordinary universal magisterium.

I would also disagree there has been only one ex cathedra statement since the definition. Those statements you cite should be classified as ex cathedra. Dr John Joy has written a doctoral dissertation on this which is going to be published soon which I very much look forward to reading.

In fact if you read the Acta of Vatican I the relator Bishop Gasser stated almost in passing that there were an enormous number of infallible pronouncements by Popes.

My own issue with the current situation is the ambiguity in the teaching and the failure to clear the confusion up.

KEP said...

Emmett, when trying to refute someone's position, it's best to 1) refute what they actually said, not what you wish they said and 2) give evidence.

I never said we only hold to the extraordinary statements of the Magisterium. I said that the only time the Pope is infallible is when he's making an extraordinary declaration from his magisterium.

What you're confusing is the ordinary magisterium of the church, which is infallible, with the popes own personal ordinary magisterium, which is fallible.

When the bishops all declare something in unison, and something which had ALWAYS been believed by the whole church, then THAT is an infallible statement of the ORDINARY magisterium.

A papal encyclical is not an infallible declaration of the ordinary magisterium.

Aside from that, the ordinary magisterium says that it's all the bishops in Union with the Pope-- not the Pope by himself. Scroll back up and read your own text. That's clearly not evident here. Lots of bishops are confused or outright disagree with Pope Francis. So this doesn't fit the definition either way.

And had been pointed out by myself and others, you're claiming that the Pope can't err when teaching in his ordinary magisterium, but then say he also can't err in his extraordinary magisterium. In both instances you say he can't err on fsith or morals, but can err on other issues. So no matter what he can't err on faith and morals. Lol. That's not what Vatican I says.

You have yet to defend this assertion. It's bordering on papolatry.

Cardinal Burke has said that AL is not part of the infallible magisterium of the Church. Other bishops and theologians agree with him. That means AL is not agreed upon by all the bishops of the Church. So you have neither the extraordinary statement by a Pope, an ecumenical council, nor the ordinary magisterium of the church here. Those are the only infallible declarations possible in the church.

And I have no problem with the Churches teaching on infallibility. I understand it. I've studied it. As has Cardinal Burke, who knows more about this than anyone posting here. You're confusing the extraordinary magisterium of the pope, the ordinary magisterium of the church, and the ordinary teaching of the pope all together.

Jason R. said...

I've always, *always* been taught that the declaration of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 is the *only* ex cathedra decree that has taken place since Vatican I, throughout my catechism in high school, through my time in formation, through my ongoing regular talks with my spiritual director, etc., so the idea that things that aren't specifically declared as ex cathedra can still be ex cathedra (which seems oxymoronic to my mind), and therefore invoking papal infallibility rather than the infallibility of the Church in a very novel concept to me, and it begs the question: which things exactly are ex cathedra pronouncements and which are not? Why wouldn't every ex cathedra pronouncement just be declared as such specifically by the pontiff in question so as to avoid any confusion as to which things are ex cathedra and which are not? And furthermore, who is the final arbiter to decide which are ex cathedra and which are not?

This concept of ex cathedra pronouncements that are not invoked as such by the Holy Father seems to lead into very murky waters, don't you think? It kind of makes the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium almost unnecessary if papal infallibility is already assumed in non-declared ex cathedra statements still being de facto ex cathedra statements, and, again, how is it to be decided and by whom which things are ex cathedra (invoking papal infallibility) and which are not (which would leave then the infallibility of the Church)?

Jason R. said...

More to consider:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff *or* (note: my emphasis, and the importance or the word "or" here instead of "and") the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Aquinas3000 said...

Yes, its a very common myth that tends to get thrown around. Pius XII doesn't declare his definition of the Assumption is an ex cathedra definition either by the way. In fact no Pope has ever declared "this statement is an ex cathedra statement." Rather we have a statement that meets all the criteria for one. There are a few reasons this myth came about. I suggest googling an article by Fr Brian Harrison "The Ex Cathedra Status of Humanae Vitae" if you want further details. One of the confusion was the limitation to dogmas. The Code of Canon Law has since been updated to give due acknowlegement to doctrines that are defined by are not declared as explicitly revealed as such (paragraph 2 of no 749 of which you quote).

The purpose of the ordinary magisterium is to carry on the teaching office of the church on a day to day basis. It works best while the doctrines it is teaching are not being disputed. When they are disputed a definition often results.

By the way, there are plenty of infallible teachings defined at ecumenical councils - that is the greatest source of our dogmatic teachings so there would still be many dogmas either way.

Terry Nelson said...

The illicitness of the 'correction' is finally getting more attention. "Vatican Insider puts out an article arguing (rightly) that "Donum Veritatis" makes the so-called "filial correction" illegitimate."

MaryP said...

There are two ordinary magisteriums of the pope. One is the ordinary universal magisterium, which is the pope (and bishops) when he speaks in union with the constant always and everywhere teaching of the Catholic Church. That magisterium is infallible. Then there is the ordinary non-universal magisterium of the pope, and that is teaching as an individual pope, through allocutions, letters, motu proprio, etc. (not off the cuuf remarks, interviews, footnotes, or magazine articles, or even private writings such as Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth books, which he took pains to say were his own reflections as a theologian, not as pope). The ordinary non-universal magisterium of the pope is not infallible, which means it is subject to error. Needless to say, the ordinary non-universal magisterium itself only exists when the pope (or an individual bishop) is speaking on faith and morals. There is much confusion here and even among some scholarly debaters on this, because people fail to make these distinctions.

MaryP said...

Aquinas, you are wrong. JPII solemnly self-consciously declared a statement in Evangelium Vitae to be part of the universal teaching.

Jason R. said...

The ex cathedra nature of Pope XII's proclaimation was implicit in the very carefully chosen way he expressed it, which was obviously making sure that all the critera as set out in Vatican I were met:

1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.
2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the 'obiter dicta' that is guaranteed by infallibility.
3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.
4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

If all of these are met in the specific wording, then it is an ex cathedra statement; there doesn't have to be a line in there that says, "Oh, btw, I'm speaking ex cathedra".

And it is very widely held throughout the entire Church, and is taught as such, that these criteria were explicitly met since Vatican I exclusively in the case of Munificentissimus Deus. I'm not really picking up what you're putting down that there have been other ex cathedra pronouncements when there is such a truly staggering amount of opinion to the contrary...

Anonymous said...

There has been much suffering in the Church by the laity who have held to the truth and had to suffer the abuses of Marxist bishops and clergy. Those of us who cared for the salvation of souls and those that would be lost due to error propagated by the "shepherds". Pope Benedict brought hope. But daily this Pope, if that he is, chips away at the heart of the Faith. On the blog Vox Cantoris in 2016: "As with Steve Skojec, I am sick of this. I am sick, sick, sick of this man on a weekly and daily basis undermining the faith. I have other things to do. I have other places that I need to place my energies. Yet, I cannot. I cannot sit by whilst this man who sits on the Chair of Peter abuses my faith, the Faith.

As Skojec says, this Bergoglio is the "single greatest threat to the Catholic world today."


He was reacting to a homily by Pope Francis regarding divorce and remarriage found here:


Pray much for the Church in this centenary of Fatima. The errors of Russia and Marxism have spread even unto the heights of the hierarchy of the Church!


Anonymous said...

I pray for the Pope, but cringe at much of what he says. What is also very troubling is that his comments are not helping to 'bring home' cafeteria Catholics or Catholics who no longer attend Mass. Instead, I see them get further away from God and truth. Praying very, very hard these days, and I hope we see some positive changes very soon. God bless.

RC said...

Yet another crushing disappointment. There is a significantly higher chance of gregory Campbell walking into the rock bar,dressed head to toe in a celtic kit,with an inflatable crocodile wrapped in a tricolour and singing sean south in Irish, than there is of the remotest possibility of anything unbiased,impartial and balanced emanating from the propaganda rag that is la stampa,vatican insider/pravda! "but for Wales Richard?" 😞

Aquinas3000 said...

I am arguing those other statements do the same as Pius XII. The reason I pointed out that he did not explicitly declare it is ex cathedra is because you yourself said:

"the idea that things that aren't specifically declared as ex cathedra can still be ex cathedra (which seems oxymoronic to my mind), and therefore invoking papal infallibility rather than the infallibility of the Church in a very novel concept to me"

So now you've shifted ground to say it does not have be specifically delcared ex cathedra. It just has to be worded to met the criteria. That is what I am saying.

The view you refer to my be common but is far from universal. Most conservative theologians I have read on the topic know better. As I pointed out the very relator at VI took it for granted when addressing the Fathers. There are, however some reasons why this view took off (which are explained in greater detail in the article I mentioned). One of them was a misunderstanding of the word "defines" - people thinking that the Pope actually has to use that word. Many Fathers at VI were concerned by this but Bishop Gasser explained in his relatio that this was not the case. VII reworded it to say "proclaims by a definitive act" which addresses better the concerns those Fathers had. The other common cause of this view was the 1917 code of canon law which only mentions dogmas when it refers to infallibility. Fortunately the new code (at least as of 1998) includes canons covering definitive but non dogmatic teaching.

Anonymous said...


you hit the buzzer on this one! This is leading to possibly the biggest problem the church has ever faced: doubting itself.


Elasmo said...

I kinda feel like on this issue, no one will change anyone else's mind. Therefore it acts more as a distraction. If the star sign leaves Virgo on the 13th, where's the damn red dragon? Shouldn't "another great sign in the sky" have shown up by now? Should we be expecting it here by this weekend?

RC said...

"I kinda feel like on this issue, no one will change anyone else's mind"

You have taken the word's right out of my mouth! Good shout! I also am beginning to think both sides are entrenched to the point where no argument,no viewpoint hasn't been espoused. Personally I have fought the good fight and run my race as far as I can,each person will face their own particular judgement on this so let God sift the wheat as He decrees. Back to lurking/reading for me I think, on this subject anyway.

Anonymous said...

I have pontifical degrees, and I can attest that Emmet is most certainly wrong. Amoris is not infallible, it is not magisterial (the Pope himself, in the document himself, said so. So the Pope CAN be wrong in this document, and he IS most certainly wrong in this document.

Mark W said...

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

And here we sit, arguing and, often, spiting invective at one another.

And so far as I can tell, not one of you mentioned the demonic attack in Las Vegas. The shooting began at 10:08pm local time. This attack took place after vespers of Sunday. So from a liturgical calendar point of view, it is technically an event for the 2nd of October - the Feast of the Guardian Angels.

Division is of the devil. The righteous - the elect, perhaps - bickering amongst themselves while the attack goes merrily on, must truly make the devil happy. In this case it was a physical attack, but don't underestimate the spiritual attack that brought it about.

You want to talk about something? Perhaps it's time to get back to the reason this blog is here in the first place, and what originally attracted us all here.

What's the significance of this attack taking place on the Feast of the Guardian Angels?

And please, forgive my indignation and writing so directly. It's been a very long couple of weeks at home and at work, and directness is all I have left in me.

Bridget said...

Hey Mark- I actually mentioned it back on the Guadalupe post. Here's my comment. I was surprised as well this attack hasn't come up yet in the conversation! I'm probably way off- these were just my initial thoughts the morning I heard the news.

Does anyone ever worry about self-fulfilling prophecy?

At least 50 dead, 200 injured in shooting on Las Vegas Strip - The Washington Post

Worst mass shooting in U.S. history. I don't know the gunman's beliefs, but my first thought was "oh no...what if this is some crazy person who KNEW about the 40 days of repentance/day of atonement and sought out "Sin City" taking the chastisement into his own hands??? :(

Again, don't know the details. But I worry about that scenario!

Colin Cooper said...

On a different topic, might there be some (even if slightly tangential) relation between the current Catalan crisis in Spain and the later Pontevedra apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima to Sister Lucia in the late 1920s?

People often forget that Fatima apparitions, albeit in a private capacity, occurred in Spain.

Indeed I believe it was in Pontevedra, Spain that according to them testimony of Sister Lucia, Our Lady explicitly called for the Pope and Bishops to consecrate Russia in unison (correct me if wrong). She also asked people to pray for "Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the world"...in that order.

The current Prime Minister of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, grew up in Pontevedra and was its council president after the fall of Franco.

The centennial anniversary of the miracle of the Sun will be on October 13. The projected unilateral declaration of independence by the Catalans is slated to take place around the same time.

If this happens, the Spanish government may revoke Catalan Parliament and impose direct rule - which in turn could lead, though I pray not, to violence either way.

Regardless, the optics of the Miracle of the Sun took place over the Iberian peninsula and on its anniversary the Iberian peninsula may be about to lapse into chaos if urgent external mediation is not initiated.

Jason R. said...

Colin, I definitely agree with you that Catalonia is somewhere very much to watch, and may even be the beginning of a general unraveling to take place. I have a couple of posts at the end of the comments on the last blog post before this one that I'd be interested to get your take on (if you don't mind?).

Colin Cooper said...

That's excellent Jason, I'm off to read your posts and will get back to you on this over on the other thread!

Jason R. said...

Awesome, thanks Colin, and if what I wrote doesn't resonate, please don't feel obligated or anything to comment on it (I appreciate you just taking a look at it!).

JMC said...

I have just finished reading exactly this in "The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching" at Catholicism.org. The one thing the document there did not mention was that theologians in dissent are specifically not to make use of mass media, so you've actually clarified things for me by bringing that up. It makes a lot of sense now, that Pope Francis has not answered the dubia...though I do seem to recall, at one point, the Cardinals asserted that they went public precisely because they received no answer; if my memory is incorrect, I would appreciate it if someone straightened me out there.
Thanks for all the effort you expend trying to keep us all on the right path, Emmett.

Jason R. said...

Thanks for mentioning that article JMC, it clarified quite a few things that I was confused on. Highly recommend it to anyone interested, it lay it out in the easiest way to understand I've seen yet.

Dumb Ox said...

It has now been nearly two weeks since the filial correction; the fruits of which have been division and confusion among us. I will have to admit that my initial reaction was in favor of the correction; however, we must judge this by its fruits. I think some clarification from the Vatican would be helpful. Here's an article from Vatican Insider that seems to address the objections in the filial correction. This has challenged my position. Please, give it a read: http://dlvr.it/PsCFkJ.

Anonymous said...

At times I haven't been so sure about Pope Francis, but I reflect back to his calling for a Year of Mercy in 2016 and I see the Holy Spirit guiding our Vicar of Christ. I just have to look at world events now and it all seems to make great sense. Keep praying to Our Lady.. the battle has already been won.

Mark W said...

Thanks, Bridget. I didn't see that in the other post. I'm glad someone is paying attention.

"what if this is some crazy person who KNEW about the 40 days of repentance/day of atonement and sought out "Sin City" taking the chastisement into his own hands???"

The odds are good that it will be far worse than this.

Aquinas3000 said...

Dubia are not dissent they are a series of questions asking for clarification. It is a traditional process. Many dubia are submitted by bishops to Vatican Congregations.

Anonymous said...

From a very well known Canonist Dr. Ed Peters:


"On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made
October 5, 2017
I have taken no position on the Correctio Filialis. I know and respect some of its signatories as I do some of its critics but, as the document itself seems to fall within the boundaries of Canon 212, I say, ‘Have at it folks and may the better arguments prevail’. That said, some recent arguments against the Correctio are, in my view, subtly deficient and, time permitting, I will reply to them.

But even before that, I wish to reply to an attitude I perceive emerging against the Correctio, one that attempts to dissuade Correctio supporters from their position by alleging a disastrous—but supposedly logical—consequence of their being right, something along these lines: If Amoris laetita and/or Pope Francis and/or his Vatican allies are really as bad as the authors of the Correctio seem to believe, then all petitions, Dubia, and corrections will do no good. Prayer and fasting would be more advisable.


Setting aside that several of these scenarios are not asserted in the Correctio and that the evidence concerning some others is not yet in, underlying this doomsday-like retort of the Correctio is, I think, a certain despair about the importance of argument itself in this matter. At the very least, such a bleak conclusion disregards the duty of certain Catholics precisely to engage in such debates.

Canon 212 § 3 has been invoked by those supporting the Correctio to point out that the Church herself recognizes the right of certain persons “to manifest to sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”, namely, those persons who possess “knowledge, competence, and prestige” in regard to the matter under discussion. Indeed. But Canon 212 § 3 says something more.

Canon 212 § 3 states in regard to persons with special knowledge, competence, and prestige in regard to ecclesiastical matters, that they “have the right and even at times the duty” to express their views on matters impacting the well-being of the Church (my emphasis). The duty. Not just the right.

Thus to the extent that some qualified signatories and/or supporters of the Correctio have realized a duty (expressed in law) to address these matters, they are not simply acting under the protection of law (as are those exercising a right), they are acting in accord with its directives (as do those under an obligation). Now, to be sure, Canon 212 is not self-interpreting and several prudential considerations must be considered when applying it. But in its very terms is the expression of a duty incumbent upon certain Catholics who are qualified by their education, experience, and Church positions to make serious arguments on matters impacting the Church. And I see no exception in the law for those whose positions might imply the existence of other problems for the Church or for those who arguments seem unlikely to be acted upon.

Cdl. Caffara said “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty, and insecurity in the Church.” Much of that confusion turns, obviously, on the meaning of technical terms and on the content of intellectual assertions. Those blessed with advanced training in such technical terms and intellectual assertions may be, and at times should be, at the forefront of these debates.

And, yes, all participants in these debates should be engaged in extra prayer and fasting."

It would be very nice if unqualified people would simply stop claiming to be in the know about this....Mr. O'Regan!

Anonymous said...

Sorry Emmett you are way off kilter on this one....

If a person is in an objective state of adultery with no repentance and with no chance of living as brother and sister, the adulterer cannot receive Holy Communion because it is a sacrilege. That goes all the way back to St. Paul. There are no exceptions to the moral code. No special cases. If a person can receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin of adultery, why not other types of practicing mortal sinners like fornicators and sodomites all for the sake of false mercy? The whole moral code comes crashing down. The whole point of this is to open the door to the sodomites in the church for full acceptance. It's diabolical all the way around.

If Benedict XVI resigned under duress the resignation is null and void and making Francis the anti-pope. Everything Francis has done would be overturned.

In AL Francis states "No one is condemned to hell forever. It's not the logic of the Gospel." BALONEY. A satanic lie.

It's the Fault of Francis the Dubia and the Correction went public.
The Faithful DEMAND clarification and they have a right to it.

Bobby Forrest BA (Hons) QUB Economic and Social History said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3455-la-stampa-and-the-fallible-infallible-magisterium said...


MightyRighty said...

@EO'R -

If I might make an observation - your writing seems to have quickly reached a level of sophistication and detail of late that suggests you are in conversation with others pertaining to this matter.

If I might offer some counsel -

(I warned against the Right-Wing types in previous posts.
I feel I must warn against the Left-Wing types too.)

Perhaps consider that those who advise you may have an agenda of their own?

If I might make a suggestion - Lets get back to Prophecy and leave the legalese to others? Great Monarch, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Anon of 10/5/17 @ 18:51

You've taken that quote out of context. The proper context includes a reading of the prior paragraph, #296, which includes the line:

"The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement…The way of the Church is not to condemn
anyone for ever"

Anonymous said...


Not out of context. It was direct quote. Para 297. It's heretical.

Anonymous said...

How can any CHRISTIAN say someone cannot be condemned to hell forever?????

If someone dies in a state of mortal sin without repentance they descend to hell forever. That is basic Catholic Teaching. No pope can change that....

How can any CHRISTIAN say the Lord's Teachings are just Christian ideals???? What happened to grace???

It just blows my mind on a continual basis...

Francis is in a pickle. That's why he is silent.

MightyRighty said...

Its just occurred to me that in following this course Francis has mimicked Peter by thrice denying god -

1. Commandment 6, on Adultery (cannot be in communion, obviously)
2. Commandment 9 on Coveting neighbours wife/husband (again, not in Communion)
3. Mark 10:9 Denying a pronouncement of Christ - 'What God has joined together, let no man pull asunder.' It follows then that those whos marriage has not be annulled by the Church are expressly not in communion with the words spoken by Christ?

Remarkable, really.

ManyThanks said...

To ANONYMOUS posters -
1- please use the box marked Name/URL in the postings options (below)

2 - You can pick a random name (you dont have to register anything)

3 - Its much easier to keep track of conversations.


Anonymous said...


Very fine observation! Jesus was super clear on Holy Matrimony and adultery.

The Orthodox Church has called Christ a liar on those very teachings for years.....One of the reasons why I left them.

Henry VIII's denial of Christ's clear teachings on marriage and adultery caused countless Catholic Priests to lose their heads among others. Those martyrs must be spinning in their graves about Francis's teachings in AL.

Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve said...

Canonist Ed Peters has a good column on the Correctio, without taking a position on it for or against.
He points out that Church law can at times require certain members of the faithful to speak out about such matters.
With respect for Pope Francis, I do find it strange that he will not dialogue with those members of the Church who have merely asked questions (the "dubia" cardinals) and also with others, like the authors of the Correctio. Amoris has definitely caused confusion, and we have a state where some bishops, like in Malta, have issued "guidelines" that do in fact contradict the constant teaching of the Church on marriage and divorce. The Pope has not corrected them, so are people to assume that it's now OK to divorce and remarry, contrary to the law of Christ?
The Pope himself could clear up this confusion if he were more careful about what he says and writes in the first place, and then would be open to dialogue with those who have questions about it. I think we're slipping into some papolatry nowadays. I offer these opinions with respect for you, Emmett, and others who may disagree with me.
God bless all here.

Anonymous said...

I am with you! I hope and pray Mr. O'Regan will drop all this Pope Francis correction stuff and get back to end times prophecy. Who is right regarding the correction can be debated ad nauseam. Ultimately it's a debate that can only be settled by either God; the Cardinals; or a future Pope. Please, let's move on.
I am highly curious about the Las Vegas massacre, worst in US history. Surely there is a connection to prophecy?


Jay29 said...

Like I have said Francis is in a pickle. If he upholds Christ's clear teachings as well as the constant teaching teaching of the Church, he will get crushed by the modernists...If Francis backs up the teachings of the bishops of Malta and even Germany he will be branded a heretic by his own words.

This is not a right or left issue. A Catholic either stands with Christ and authentic Catholic Teaching or you don't. Pastoral means can never override the Truth of Christ and the constant teaching of the Church.

Aquinas3000 said...

I think seeing some apocalyptic significance in a mass shooting in America is reading way too much into things. Mass shootings happen in America every 200 days or so on average for the past five years. One can overstrain to see links everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Aquinas3000, can you provide a source for: "Mass shootings happen in America every 200 days or so on average for the past five years."?

If that is true, I think that alone constitutes a sign of the great advancement of evil in this country. I may be very naive but I doubt the validity of that claim.


Anonymous said...

A quick internet search turns up numerous "Mass" shootings in the US. You are correct. However, the listings include things like known gang related shootings, mafia type hits, and multiple shootings on the same night within the same city but by different shooters. Thus the numbers of "Mass shootings" is clearly arbitrary. (Source: Reddit).

As a counter, total solar eclipses happen in the world, on average, every 18 months. Two totalities every three years. (Source: space.com). So one can claim a total solar eclipse is nothing significant as well.


Anonymous said...

> Not out of context. It was direct quote. Para 297. It's heretical.

Direct quotes without surrounding text is, by definition, "out of context."

Anonymous said...

Las Vegas (Sin City) most clearly represents the excesses of modern day Babylon (one could say). From outer space it is the single brightest city on the planet.
Las Vegas in located within the Mojave Desert where Death Valley is located and it is the hottest desert in the US.
The Mojave Desert is where the "Three Mountains" are located (Hamok avi).
The Mojave name is Huqueamp avi which means "where the battle took place." The "battle" is that "in which the god Mastamho slew the sea serpent". Additionally the peaks of the three mountains (Huqueamp avi) "mark the passageway through which after cremation of the body, the spirit departs to the Shadow Land."

University of California Press: http://scq.ucpress.edu/content/49/1/1


Jay29 said...

Jesus Christ states hell is everlasting. Yet francis states no one is condemned forever. Its not the logic of the Gospels.

It's precisely the logic of the Gospels.

You still can't address my argument. Christ states people are condemned forever and francis says no?

Jason R. said...

I find these developments truly terrifying. As Colin pointed out, Our Lady of Fatima specifically mentioned Spain in her apparitions to Sr. Lucia.

Not counting former Yugoslavia, the chance of a civil war is looming in Europe right now for the first time since the end if the Second World War.

Not to take anything away from the tragic massacre in Las Vegas, but I see this very real threat of civil war again coming to Spain, especially with the centenary being so close, as much more likely to be a prophetic event.


Peter from Oz said...

Emmett, thanks for all the research and work you put in your blog.
Next Friday the 13th October is one hundred years since the Miracle of the Sun, and the last apparition of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima
I find the Mass readings interesting:
1st Reading from Joel - "The day of the Lord is coming, a day of darkness and gloom".
Psalm: The Lord will judge the world with justice.
Gospel Acclamation: ...the prince of this world will now be cast out....

Jason R. said...

A thoughtful article on what the crisis in Spain could lead to:


Jason R. said...

... and another. Again, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that all this is happening with the centenary of the Miracle of the Sun so close:


Emmett O'Regan said...

I've always been able to write at a more sophisticated level MightyRighty! I don't have ghost writers! :) I purposely choose to try to keep the more overly theological stuff to a minimum, so as not to put off those not interested in such matters. But I know what you mean. I do want to get back to blogging about prophecy related matters. It's just that there has been a certain amount of overlap of late, with all the current drama in the Church.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Normal(ish) blogging will resume soon.

Emmett O'Regan said...

I agree Sr. Lorraine. Pope Francis should be engaging more on this matter, and some clear guidelines should be issued to clear up all this confusion.

Mark W said...

“In AL Francis states "No one is condemned to hell forever. It's not the logic of the Gospel." BALONEY. A satanic lie.”

I almost hate to add anything to this already contentious discussion, but the comment above really should not be allowed to stand. This isn’t even the proper translation.

From the Vatican’s website:

“No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”


In this case, he’s not speaking of eternal condemnation. Hell isn’t even mentioned in the real quote. And if you're worried about the translation, hoc est in linguam Latinam:

“Nemo in perpetuum damnari potest, quia haec est mens Evangelii!”


This is a perfect example of shoddy writing, in both English and Latin, but this is NOT an example of an overtly heretical statement. And quite honestly, the changing of the text to “No one is condemned to hell forever”, is more an indication of the calumny of the writer than the heresy of the pope.

I’m no fan of either AL or this pope, but fair’s fair.

Anonymous said...

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors.... [Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4]

If Vatican I meant what it said and said what it meant it states that every successor of St. Peter has the gift of never failing faith. How can one gifted with never-failing faith every become a heretic? Unless the Holy Father's detractors are suggesting that it's just fluffy rhetoric it clearly says that it is impossible for a canonically elected pope to become a heretic

Anonymous said...

One last thing, Satan deceived Eve to disobey God's clear instruction by making God look evil with his suggestions. Jesus said that the pope is the rock, and people are trying to stir up a schism by making people doubt the pope's character. Whoever rejects the true pope, rejects Jesus.

Don't think that because someone prays a lot and look outwardly pious they can't be doing the Devils work. Many people who pretend to be religious supported a character like Donald Trump, and even defend his active evil that is revealed daily.

Stephen Ho said...

The following is from the "Rorate Coeli" blog :

<<< Joseph Ratzinger: "Criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed" >>>

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. These remarks, which we now publish below in English translation, are particularly relevant in light of the filial correction of Pope Francis last week:

"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."

Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie, (Düsseldorf : Patmos, 1972) p. 144.

Fede, ragione, verità e amore, (Lindau 2009), p. 400.

Ratzinger continued his reflections on the limits of the power of the Roman Pontiff to contradict immutable doctrine as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later as Pope Benedict XVI.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1998:

"The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation. The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy."

Pope Benedict XVI, 2005:

"The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism."



Jay29 said...


I might have been wrong on the quote, however, to say that "No one can be condemned forever. It's not the logic of the Gospel" is a horrible statement.

Since the Church doesn't condemn anyone, it is the Lord who condemns. Condemnation by the Lord lasts forever and is the logic of the Gospel. I guess when he added forever and the logic of the Gospel together in the same sentence meant eternal condemnation is the way I took it.

Francis needs to clear this up. He won't though because of that pesky little pickle he is in. He will remain silent as the Church splits. On purpose.

Accusing me of calumny is bearing false witness because it is Francis who caused this whole mess and all the confusion in the pews.

Also using pastoral means to get around moral law is appalling. I guess I'm too "rigid." Meaning I'm too Catholic.....

Mark W said...

"...to say that "No one can be condemned forever. It's not the logic of the Gospel" is a horrible statement."

I don't disagree with you in the least, and I did point out that it's shoddy writing if nothing else.

"Francis needs to clear this up."

I don't disagree with this in the slightest either.

"Accusing me of calumny is bearing false witness because it is Francis who caused this whole mess and all the confusion in the pews."

I don't disagree with the idea that Francis caused this.

I do disagree, very strenuously, with the idea of misquoting a document and using that incorrect quote as an attack on a cleric - regardless of whether or not it's a sitting pope. If you're going to use a statement like that in the defense of your position - and use that to say that a pope - ANY POPE - is guilty of heresy - then it is your ABSOLUTE obligation to make certain that what you say is correct and to site your sources. Do you think that the people writing the Correctio said, "ah, I mighta gotten a quote or two wrong"? Do you think the cardinals that wrote the Dubia might have said, "close enough"? No, they are writing about our Holy Father - the Vicar of Christ on earth - and they would have given him the respect of getting their facts in order before putting pen to paper.

"I might have been wrong on the quote..."

Sloppy writing on the pope's part is not an excuse for sloppy writing on ours. You and I are more on the same side than not. If you're too rigid, I'm probably within a few paces of you. Which is precisely why the specificity of language is important. It does not aid our argument one iota to say that the pope is specifically talking about spiritual damnation when he's really talking about temporal "condemnation" (even using that word in this context makes me ill. We had a deacon say that the Church was, "no longer a church of condemnation" when AL came out. As if the Church had EVER been a church of condemnation. And here the Holy Father is using the same setup.) Everything we say will be measured by the other side. We can't argue against a sitting pope without some semblance of respect - for the office if not the man. And saying things that were not said fails in that regard.

This does NOT need to be a friendly-fire moment, and I do not intend for it to be one. But we do have to be VERY careful of what we say and how we say it. If you were in a place less friendly than here, you might just be giving the Jesuit's ammo to use against us somewhere else. And based on what I think you've written (hard to tell without some kind of name on your posts), I don't think you want to give the left and the Jesuits any kind of ammunition.

And I assure you, if I were ever made pope through some very weird miracle, the Jesuits would be suppressed within the first hour. So yeah, you and I are more or less on the same side.


Mark W said...

And to get back to what this place is for...

There was a 6.0 earthquake 125 miles from Akita, Japan earlier today.

theflyingnun said...

World Events:

Aug. 21 - U.S. Solar Eclipse
Aug. 21 - 4.2 magnitude earthquake at Ischia (site of unapproved Our Lady of Zaro messages)
Aug. 25 - Hurricane Harvey hits Texas
Sep. 8 - 8.1 magnitude earthquake off coast of Mexico; strange lights seen over Mexico City
city where Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine is)
Sep. 8 - 5.2 magnitude earthquake hits Akita, Japan (site of Our Lady of Akita)
Sep. 9 - Hurricane Irma hits Florida
Sep. 19 - 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Mexico
Sep. 20 - Hurricane Maria hits Puerto Rico, particularly devastating San Juan after also
hitting the Virgin Islands, Guadaloupe, and Dominica
Sep. 23 - Woman Clothed with the Sun sign; filial correction of Pope Francis made public
Sep. 27 - Popocatepetl volcano in Mexico erupts
Oct. 1 - Las Vegas shooting (deadliest US shooting ever)
Oct. 1 - Catalonia votes for independence from Spain
Oct. 1 - Ambae volcano in Vanuatu erupts (massive evacuations)

Significant Religious Events:

Aug. 15 - Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
Aug. 15 - Sep. 29 - St. Michael's Lent
Sep. 29/30 - Yom Kippur (Jewish Day of Atonement)
Oct. - month of the Rosary
Oct. 7 - Our Lady of the Rosary
Oct. 13 - 100th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima

I thought that this was a nice chronicle of the events that has happened since Aug, 21.

theflyingnun said...

Fatima Dates as How it Relates to the Number 33.

Mother Mary’s final appearance in Fatima, on Oct. 13, 1917 was exactly 33 years, to the day, after Pope Leo XIII’s vision (Oct, 13, 1884) which is also the length of Jesus' life.
(Not sure if the date is correct, though, no one seems to know fur sure).

33 years ago, when on the 25th of March 1984, Pope St. John Paul II in Union with All the Bishops of the World, Consecrated all Individuals and Peoples of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (not everyone believes that the consecration took place).

33 years ago, April 22, 1984 — After eight years of investigations, Rev. John Shojiro Ito, Bishop of Niigata, Japan, recognizes "the supernatural character of a series of mysterious events concerning the statue of the Holy Mother Mary" and authorizes "throughout the entire diocese, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter.

"Despite claims that Cardinal Ratzinger gave definitive approval to Akita in 1988, no ecclesiastical decree appears to exist, as certainly would in such a case. However, some individuals, such as former Ambassador of the Phillipines to the Holy See, Mr. Howard Dee, have stated that they were given private assurances by Cardinal Ratzinger of the authenticity of Akita. In any case, in keeping with the current norms, given the absence of a repudiation of Bp. Ito's decision by his successors, or by higher authority, the events of Akita continue to have ecclesiastical approval.]

Maybe I am getting carried away with all this 33 stuff, but if you take the day that planet Jupiter actually was birthed, (September 9,) and you add 33 days to it, you get to Oct, 12. "Oh, so close, but yet so far away", or "so close, but no cigar."


I found this neat site to track earthquakes easily!

theflyingnun said...

Okay Mark W, now I am really getting scared!

I didn't realize how closely related Akita and Fatima is. I just read that four years prior of having apparitions from the Lady of Akita, Sister Agnes had an Angel visitor that taught her how to recite the rosary the way that it was taught in Fatima.

Then I suddenly saw on the right side of my bed a gracious person whom I did not know and
who began to pray the Rosary with me. After the first decade she added a prayer I did not know. Surprised, I repeated it after her. Then she counseled me to add this after each decade. The words are:
“‘Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires
of hell, lead all souls to heaven and especially those who are
most in need of your mercy.’

“A friend who was watching at my bedside at that very moment was about to leave on the advice of my mother, because it was getting very late, but she remained a little longer in order to hear this unknown prayer to the end. As for myself, the words of the prayer remained engraved in my memory and I never fail to add them after each decade.
“A short time afterwards, a Salesian priest asked me to teach it to him and wanted to know where I had learned it. Later, I received a letter from him saying that this prayer
had been taught by the Virgin to the children at Fatima, that there had not yet been a definitive translation into Japanese, but it was indeed in this manner that the prayer
should be said. It is thus that I came to know the precious origin of this prayer.”

Jason R. said...

On the topic of Japan, my cousin from Tokyo told me today that they are bracing for the worst flooding ever recording in Japan that will be hitting anytime. I haven't been able to verify this on any new sites yet, but Dominic has akways been a very reliable source of information for me.

theflyingnun said...

October 13, 1973 Message to Sr. Agnes from Our Lady Of Akita

"My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior."

After a short silence:

"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests."

"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

"The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them"

"With courage, speak to your superior. He will know how to encourage each one of you to pray and to accomplish works of reparation."

"It is Bishop Ito, who directs your community."

And She smiled and then said:

"You have still something to ask? Today is the last time that I will speak to you in living voice. From now on you will obey the one sent to you and your superior."

"Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved."


Here is a pdf that Written by Father Teiji Yasuda, chaplain of the convent in
Akita, this book was first published in Japanese with theImprimatur of the Bishop of Niigata.

theflyingnun said...

Hi Jason R,
It is amazing that Japan has at least 10 earthquakes none less than a 4.8 in the last month.
also, have you seen any news on parts of the Mississippi River going dry. Take a look at the video if you get a chance.


Jason R. said...

That surely is disturbing, I never have thought of Missouri as someplace where a major earthquake could take place, nor did I ever consider that water disappearing into the ground is a sign that a big quake could be coming, but it sure makes sense, especially as explained in this article (oh, did that "Future Map of North America"send shivers up and down my spine, especially since it was borrowed from a Forbes article, cementing the legitimacy in a more real way of what the future could hold). I don't mean that in any maligning way of that website, just that Forbes is a more popular and established info source is all.

Thank you for sharing this theflyingnun; disappearing water a sign of an earthquake on the horizon on one side of the world, on the other apparently big flooding coming amongst an unsettling cluster of earthquakes (I worry about all that radioactive water still contained at Fukishima as well, I'm sure a big seismic event anywhere nearby could have all of that highly radioactive water flooding out into the Pacific. Here in Canada we're seeing higher and higher levels of radiation in both the farmed and natural salmon off the coast of British Columbia, with a lot of that irradiated water starting to have a real impact on the ecology off the coast of Western Canada.

I'm still watching the first video, but will definitely watch both!!

Emmett O'Regan said...

It's interesting that there is going to be a meteor shower tonight in the constellation Draco. Today is the feast of the Holy Rosary.

Emmett O'Regan said...

That's a brilliant summary of events in that 40-day period Rick (@theflyingnun)!

Just would like to add that the North Korean nuclear crisis was also the closest the world has (tangibly) came to nuclear war since Cuba in 1962 - which also peaked at the end of September. Hopefully this threat will dissipate. Kind of what I expected in my original post on the Sign of Jonah and the Binding of Satan.

Joanna said...

There is also something positive happening today, millions of Polish Catholics are urged to join into praying rosary on the border. There are almost 400 churches close to borders taking part with thousands of people signing in and joining the prayer for the conversion of Polish People but also praying for the world. If you look at an interactive map below, you can see all the churches and around Polish border taking part. It's very encouraging. And if you zoom out on the map below, Polish churches across different parts of the world are taking part too.



Anonymous said...

Stephen Ho

Your information about the words of Joseph Ratzinger are remarkable. I wonder if he recognized the potential for schism in the church even in 1969. Certainly his writings strengthen and legitimize those who disagree with Pope Francis.


This article shows that even in 1968 there were many whose views would align with the Modernists in the Vatican now. Could it be that Traditionalists could see this problem growing over many years but could do nothing to stop it, knowing one day it would lead to our present situation?


RC said...

Another shining example to the world coming from the Polish people.In recent years the Polish have consecrated the church to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and followed this up by officially proclaiming Christ as King of Poland,beautiful!! More and more I look to Poland as the last authentic beacon of Catholicism in Europe. Also note that lifesite news is reporting soros is funding the pro abortionists in Poland my how Lucifer must rage at a faithful people like the Polish.God bless the Polish for their fidelity and witness to the King Of Kings and The Blessed Virgin.

Mark W said...

A few things...

The Flying Nun - I'm not sure that Mississippi river thing is current. If it were that bad, it would make news. The company I worked for last had a fair amount of transport on river barges. About four or so years ago, it did get that bad, and our products were stuck for several weeks (and we weren't alone). It could be that those photos are not quite new. I looked at some of the shipping companies websites, but saw nothing about transit problems on the Mississippi. This could be happening again now, but it's also possible that it's old.

The Flying Nun again - I had no idea about how the Fatima Prayer made it into Japanese. That is kinda cool.

RC - My wife is Polish. She gets news from Polish language websites. Much of the country is involved in this, even if they can't make it to the border. My mother-in-law is participating, though she's 400km from the nearest point on the southern border (I think...honestly, kilometers are difficult to understand sometimes). Their local parish is involved, even that far away.

All - as to the earthquakes - There have been some real oddities in the past 48 hours. Matthew 24:7 - "...earthquakes in diverse places..."

There was an earthquake along the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is about the same latitude as Johannesburg, midway between the coasts of Africa and South America. This is usually a VERY quiet area. Last week, I think, there was another just north of there.

There was also an earthquake in the middle of the Indian ocean where three tectonic plates meet. Again, this is usually a VERY quiet area.

But the strange one is in the Kerguelen islands north of Antarctica in the Indian Ocean. This isn't an area that has earthquakes at all. There are no fault lines and no volcanos in the area. It measured 4.7, 93km west of Port-aux-Francais, if anyone wants to look it up.

Anonymous said...

Fr Phillip Wolfe FSSP explanation for the crisis in the Church explained in the You tube video below. Oh and this past week Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago met with Bishops at Boston College to implement AL as Pope Frances had wanted it. He also is pushing for normalization of Sodomite sex and marriage and communion for active Sodomites.


Jay29 said...

We are certainly in the Great Apostasy.....Only if the Great Apostles would be alive today in person. Francis would have them excommunicated for being too "rigid."

The top hierarchy of the Church is filled with apostates, homosexuals, freemasons, and communists.

This whole situation makes me sick. Then again, this was all predicted....

Anonymous said...

Hi Emmet,

The world came very close to a nuclear conflict in 1983, arguably even closer than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In September 1983, a Soviet early warning satellite mistakenly detected the launch of multiple ICBMs from the US (I think it was caused by light from the sun bouncing off the upper atmosphere being mistakenly interpreted as the light from ICBM rockets taking off). Only the intervention of a Soviet officer, Col. Stanislav Petrov, prevented the launch of a counterstrike by the USSR (he ignored the protocol he was meant to follow, which would have resulted in WW3). Two months later, operation Able Archer, a major NATO training exercise in West Germany convinced some at the top of the USSR that a NATO nuclear first strike was imminent (in June 1941, Nazi Germany had deployed its forces for Operation Barbarossa along on the border with the USSR under the guise of a military exercise). Again, only by the grace of God was disaster averted. See the following URL for info: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/02/nato-war-game-nuclear-disaster. I clearly remember that time and the threat of a nuclear holocaust was only too real.

I doubt if the general public fully comprehends (or even cares!) about the precarious existence mankind now has on this planet. I have no doubt that the hand of God and/or the direct intervention of Our Lady saved us from the path we were on. The role of JPII, Regan and Gorbachev can’t be overstated. All played major roles in ending the cold war and the grip of Soviet communism over Russia and eastern Europe. And all of this was achieved without a shot being fired – a miracle if ever there was one!


Virtue said...

Thank you, theflyingnun, for posting my list here! I posted it on the MOG boards but it didn't generate as much conversation as I hoped it would. Perhaps here would have been the better place. Although I compiled the list, I can't really take credit for it at all--I gleaned it all from posts and comments from here, MOG, and Dutchsinse's Youtube videos. I'm keeping a running log on my own computer now, and if people are interested I can post updates in the comments here from time to time. Also, if anyone else wants to add to it feel free! I'm sure I'm missing some events, and I may have a date mixed up here or there. I think keeping the list helps with discernment. For instance, there is an unmistakable Marian theme in these disasters, but I'm not sure what that means.

So far, I would just add the 6.0 mag earthquake outside of Akita that Mark above noted on Oct. 6, and that Our Lady of the Rosary is a First Saturday. Emmett-- I wanted to add something about the nuclear tension with North Korea but I wasn't sure what specific dates to put. I will add your note on the meteors in Draco, though!

There are a few significant things on the horizon, as well: Hurricane Nate hitting New Orleans tomorrow, Pres. Trump making an announcement about the nuclear deal with Iran on Oct. 12, and an asteroid coming very close to Earth Oct. 12/13. This last one reminds me of how, at the Miracle of the Sun, the people felt like the sun was going to fall onto them and they repented--maybe if the asteroid changes course and hits, or hits another asteroid, it could be the Warning? I think Garabandal mentioned something to do with an asteroid. It could be nothing. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, if people want me to post the updated list from time to time I will, but if it would be annoying then I won't. Also, I welcome others to add to it. I'm from the US so I'm sure to miss some significant events in other countries.

JMC said...

I'm no Latin scholar, but this is my own literal translation of "Nemo in perpetuum damnari potest, quia haec est mens Evangelii!"

"No one can be damned forever, because this is the mind of the Gospel!"

"mens" can also mean "judgment," "plan," or "intent," according to "William Whitaker's Words;" Stelten's Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin renders it as "mind, soul, spirit."

Note that the Latin sentence does not contain the negative "non," meaning "not." Not having been inside the mind of those who penned that sentence, I don't claim to know what, precisely, they had in mind, but changing the reading of that clause from "this is the mind/intent/logic of the Gospel" to "this is *not* the mind/intent/logic of the Gospel," makes the English rendering say the exact OPPOSITE of the Latin!
God does not WANT to condemn anyone to Hell. We've all heard it said that God doesn't send us to Hell; we send OURSELVES there by rejecting Him. He loves us so much that he has given us the precious gift of free will, up to and including the decision to CHOOSE to spend eternity without Him. That lends an incredible profundity to the saying, "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours; if it doesn't, it never was." (Yeah, I know, that's actually a paraphrase, but the meaning is the same.)

No one is condemned forever because the Gospel says he is; one is condemned because he CHOOSES to be. That's what this sentence says to me. So Mark W is right; it's a shoddy translation.
I wish I was better versed in Latin than I am; I'm willing to bet an awful lot of AL has fallen victim to the same "shoddy translations." I remember similar controversy when the CCC was first published in English. It took several years for that publication to come, simply because the translators couldn't agree on definitive translations from the original French. I suspect something similar has happened with AL.

Bridget said...

Hi Virtue! I vote yes-keep posting the list from time to time. Thanks! :). Here is a good short paragraph from Emmett over on the Guadalupe post.

"Four days after the eclipse, the coast of Texas was battered by Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall on Corpus Christi as a category four storm, causing widespread destruction. We then had North Korea's hydrogen bomb test on Sept 4th, and ICBM tests flying over Japan. On 2nd September, an earthquake swarm began in Idaho centred on Soda Springs, just south of the caldera of the Yellowstone supervolcano. On 10th September, we then had Hurricane Irma bearing down on the coast of Florida as a Category four storm, leaving behind a trail of destruction throughout several islands in the Atlantic. A powerful geomagnetic storm took place on 6th September, 2017, leading to a widespread occurrence of the Northern Lights. Dozens of wildfires were also raging across several states in America."

Renée said...

'Nate' comes from 'Nathaniel,' a name with Hebrew origins that means 'God Has Given' or 'God's Gift.'

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks Virtue! Do please keep us updated!

Mark W said...

Hi Virtue - I vote yes as well. if you're to be the keeper of the timeline, you might want to note that the shooting in Vegas happened - liturgically speaking - on the 2nd. of October. It was after vespers local time, so it would have been - again, with regards to the liturgical calendar - an event for the Feast of the Guardian Angels.

MaryP said...

The pope is infallible first in his exercise of the extraordinary universal magisterium (solemn teaching under specified conditions; cf Vat I and Lumen Gentium).

Second, he is infallible when he enunciates what Catholics have always and every believed. This is termed the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church.

The pope is fallible when exercising the ordinary non-universal magisterium. This pertains to the Pope, and to bishops, and it is simply their non-infallible teachings, applications, reflections, etc. A pope exercises it in documents and formal speeches, but not in conversation.

Another note: infallible means "without possibility of error" so it is ridiculous to claim that a pope cannot err in his non-infallible teaching. Non-infallible means it is possible to err.

Emmett O'Regan said...

You are still not fully grasping what the Church actually teaches about the teaching authority of the ordinary non-universal magisterium Mary P. Yes, it is fallible, and may contain some deficiencies when it comes to areas not related to faith and morals, such as science, politics, economics, etc. Yet the Church teaches that there is a Divine assistance given even in the ordinary magisterium which prevents it from teaching error in areas related to faith and morals, which is quite separate from the dogma of papal infallibility. So while it is fallible, it cannot contain heresy. This teaching is not something new which I have just dreamt up. Do the research and you will see for yourself that this is true. It's just not a very well known teaching to anyone who hasn't studied theology.

Emmett O'Regan said...

The promise of Divine assistance in the ordinary magisterium is the reason that Cardinal Burke has taken the angle that AL is non-magisterial in character in order to question its authority. This is a completely novel approach though, and does not mesh with previous understanding of the scope of the papal magisterium.

Mark L said...

This is very important Emmett. It may be one of the most important topics your blog ever covers. And it is certainly relevant, certainly a sign of the end times. Perhaps its greatest.

The submission of obedience is becoming extraordinarily difficult in our day. Despising authority is what the ancient foe does, it is always his hallmark. Authority is what the fallen angels understand best, because they were created into hierarchy. So they first dismantle authority, divide the flock, then convince its members that they know better than their leaders. Convince them that their vitriol is actually rebuilding the church, when in fact it shows they are the unknowing accomplices of destruction. Humility disappears.

Truly Matthew 24.12 has come to pass: The love of those who should be Love in the world has gone out because of lawlessness.

And none of it would be possible without the greatest tool of mass psychology ever invented: the www.

An outstanding article: "'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia"

Mark L.

Bridget said...

Mark L,

YES! I'm in complete agreement. "Authority is what the fallen angels understand best, because they were created into hierarchy." and..."none of it would ever be possible without the greatest tool of mass psychology ever invented: the www."

You hit the nail on the head...twice!

Stepping back, I always thought this was a pretty simple situation to understand. Satan's time of greater power is about to come to an end. For his final blow, he's trying to go out with a bang and attack the Church at its head, the Pope. Just when we think the Woman is about to be swept away by the flood...

And I've been thinking as well, isn't the confusion going on being fed by the internet?

Bridget said...

I know the counter argument is, "No, Pope Francis is responsible for the confusion." But I'm trusting there's a good reason for this and it will be clear later.

JMC said...

This very confusion about just exactly what papal infallibility means, and when it applies, is precisely why both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (Or "Father Benedict," as he prefers to be addressed now) were always careful to announce when something was just their opinion, and that we were free to disagree on the matter. In the latter case it was over the issue of capital punishment. I don't recall what the issue was in the former instance.

Aquinas3000 said...

" Yes, it is fallible, and may contain some deficiencies when it comes to areas not related to faith and morals, such as science, politics, economics, etc"

No, first of all statements on such matters are not part of the ordinary papal magisterium. It has to be faith and morals to even pass the first gate. You are making everything the Pope says his ordinary magisterium and then subdividing it into faith and morals related and not so related.

"Yet the Church teaches that there is a Divine assistance given even in the ordinary magisterium which prevents it from teaching error in areas related to faith and morals, which is quite separate from the dogma of papal infallibility."

A Pope's ordinary teaching is not without divine assistance, that's true but not to such an extent as to make it impossible for him to err. That's what leads to your contradictory notion of infallible fallible statements.

"The promise of Divine assistance in the ordinary magisterium is the reason that Cardinal Burke has taken the angle that AL is non-magisterial in character in order to question its authority."

It's also because he's aware there is another requirement that needs to be met as specified in Lumen Gentium. "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." There does have to be some force behind what a Pope is saying. Not every remark or sentence in a document is magisterial.

Now the problem with AL is precisely the fact that it has ambiguous statements which don't clearly teach one way or another. Burke et al hold to the traditional teaching that is seemingly subverted through ambiguous language. So they are not dissenting from anything. They are trying to get a reaffirmation of prior teaching from the Pope in order to stop people saying AL overturns this that or the other thing. The Pope has been reluctant to do this and unofficially has even encouraged those who have promoted the untraditional interpretation (encouraging the Malta bishops, Argentine bishops etc).

Mark L said...

"O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy...I am your servant the son of your serving girl, a man who is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws. Scarcely can we guess the things on earth, and only with difficulty grasp what is at hand; but things in heaven, who can search them out? Give me, therefore, Wisdom, the attendant at your throne..."

Wisdom 9, Solomon's Prayer

And God was so pleased with this prayer of humility that he made Solomon the wisest man who will ever live.

I was inspired in recent months to begin my day with this prayer, and recommend it to others, as an effective way to combat the enemy of our souls and to remind us that "even if a man be perfect, if he has not wisdom, he will be held in no esteem" (v. 6)

If God was so pleased with Solomon for praying it, surely we will please him in like manner and the Almighty will grace us with wisdom, too.

Mark L.

Bridget said...

Mark W, I think you'll find this article interesting. It's about the devil being dismissed as a driving force behind mass shootings. My mom actually said today that the thought crossed her mind that Stephen Paddock was physically possessed by the devil. I think it's possible!


"Faced with this vast expanse between the despicable crime and the unseemly criminal, even the man of pure reason and science must at least consider the possibility that a being or force of pure evil had a hand in Paddock’s scheme"

"So, did the devil drive Paddock, Berkowitz, Johnson, Holmes, and Dalton to crazed killing? For sure, if the devil is involved, but never given any thought, then nothing is done to stop him, and he can strike again and again."

"That’s like American security authorities dismissing as impossible the report by Philippine police before September 11, 2001, warning of a plot to hijack and crash airliners into skyscrapers. No way, they said, as they do about the devil.

And Lucifer laughs."

So what IS the significance of the attack happening on the Feast of Guardian Angels??? You mentioned that a couple times.

Virtue said...

Thank you, Bridget, for reminding me of that paragraph, and thank you, Mark W., for the correction. Of course, thank you Emmett, for this fantastic blog and your books. I've been following for a few years and only commented a couple times (anonymously, before I realized I could put a name in). Your information is invaluable, and I am especially thankful for your most recent posts. I was getting very angry and anxious, and needed to confess gossip and detraction against the Pope, but your recent posts have allowed me to feel peace for the first time in a long while, trust in God, and prayerfully wait out the storm.

Here is an updated timeline:

World Events:
Aug. 21 - U.S. Solar Eclipse
Aug. 21 - 4.2 magnitude earthquake at Ischia (site of unapproved Our Lady of Zaro messages)
Aug. 25 - Hurricane Harvey hits Corpus Christi, Texas
Sep. 2 - earthquake swarm in Soda Springs, Idaho (south of Yellowstone caldera)
Sep. 4 - North Korean hydrogen bomb test and ICBM tests flying over Japan
Sep. 6 - powerful geomagnetic storm with widespread Northern Lights; dozens of wildfires across U.S.
Sep. 8 - 8.1 magnitude earthquake off coast of Mexico; strange lights seen over Mexico City (city where Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine is)
Sep. 8 - 5.2 magnitude earthquake hits Akita, Japan (site of Our Lady of Akita)
Sep. 10 - Hurricane Irma hits Florida
Sep. 19 - 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Mexico
Sep. 20 - Hurricane Maria hits Puerto Rico, particularly devastating San Juan after also hitting the Virgin Islands, Guadaloupe, and Dominica
Sep. 23 - Woman Clothed with the Sun sign; filial correction of Pope Francis made public
Sep. 27 - Popocatepetl volcano in Mexico erupts
Oct. 1 - Catalonia votes for independence from Spain
Oct. 1 - Ambae volcano in Vanuatu erupts (massive evacuations)
Vigil of Oct. 2 - Las Vegas shooting (deadliest US shooting ever)
Oct. 6 - 6.0 magnitude earthquake 125 miles from Akita, Japan
Oct. 7 - Meteor shower in constellation Draco
Vigil of Oct. 8 - Hurricane Nate hits New Orleans

Significant Religious Events:
Aug. 15 - Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
Aug. 15 - Sep. 29 - St. Michael's Lent
Sep. 29/30 - Yom Kippur (Jewish Day of Atonement)
Oct. - month of the Rosary
Oct. 7 - Our Lady of the Rosary, First Saturday
Oct. 13 - 100th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, the Cathedral in Las Vegas is named for the Guardian Angels: "Guardian Angel Cathedral." It is the only Cathedral in the US named for the Guardian Angels. What this means, however, I have no idea. Anyone else?

Renée said...

Since many of these events have been in the Americas, Columbus Day has been on my mind. It will be observed Monday, October 9. However, October 12 was the original date observance before it was moved to the second Monday in October. That is the date of Columbus's arrival in the Americas. That day is also significant to two Marian apparitions in Spain, the canonical coronation of OLO Guadalupe Extremadura (Feast Day May 24) and the feast day of Our Lady of the Pilar (Canonical Coronation May 20). OLOP is the patroness of all Hispanic people.

Jason R. said...

Renée, I have thought about it being Columbus Day today as well, and the spiritual significance of that in the middle of so many troubled times, how his voyage was the beginning of the wide spread of Catholicism outside of Europe. It's Thanksgiving Day here in Canada, which holds significance for me as a day of gratitude for Our Lord's many blessings, and a reminder that no matter what is going on in the world, instead of fear we can accept it as all being a part of Our Lord's plan, through Our Lady as well, and that He is in control of all things even in times when it may not seem so apparent. Thanks again for bringing this up, Renée, I wrote a bit on Columbus in the last blog comments, and being reminded of the celebration of Columbus Day ties even more loose knots together for me.

Emmett O'Regan said...

"No, first of all statements on such matters are not part of the ordinary papal magisterium. It has to be faith and morals to even pass the first gate. You are making everything the Pope says his ordinary magisterium and then subdividing it into faith and morals related and not so related."

Says who? I'd like to see a quote to back that particular claim up. The Ordinary Magisterium has plenty to say in areas not related to faith and morals, and it is in these areas that there may be some deficiencies. And no, not everything the pope says is part of his magisterium, nor did I ever claim that. A pope can certainly fall into material heresy in a private capacity (as per Pope John XXII), but the promise of Divine assistance assures us that he can never bind the Church to formal heresy by way of his public magisterium (which John XXII didn't and couldn't). This has never happened throughout Church history (despite what Protestants say about Pope Honorius), because of the Divine assistance that is extended to the pope in matters related to faith and morals even in his non-infallible magisterium.

Emmett O'Regan said...

“Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases”
Pope St John Paul II, General Audience, March 24, 1993 

Emmett O'Regan said...

By way of an example where the Ordinary Magisterium has weighed in on areas not specifically related to faith and morals is on the question of global warming and environmental issues etc. in Laudato si.

Everything issued in magisterial documents are part of the public papal magisterium. It cannot be limited to certain passages or bracketed off into tiny slices of material which specifically invoke magisterial authority. What you are proposing is a consumer-driven take on the authority of the magisterium, so that you can "cherry-pick" what you like, and discard the rest. This is not the case though. Everything in the Ordinary Magisterium demands religious assent by the submission of the will and intellect (even to the non-irreformable portions you may disagree with privately). You are starting from the presupposition that AL is indeed heretical, and then working backwards from there to attempt to prove it, willing to ride rough-shod over what the Church has always taught on the authority of the papal magisterium to do so, and stoking the fires of dissent among the lay faithful in the process.

Emmett O'Regan said...

From Fr. Robert J. Levis on EWTN:

"To sum up the official teaching of the Church:

l. If it is a teaching proclaimed by the extraordinary magisterium,
a good Catholic must assent under pain of heresy.

2. If it is a teaching proclaimed by the ordinary magisterium, e.g.
the 10 Commandments, a good Catholic must assent under pain of
serious sin.

3. If it is a teaching seriously proclaimed by the magisterium in a
non-infallible way, on a non-infallible topic, a good Catholic
must assent under pain of sin, possibly mortal. Canon 752 covers
this case, (see below).

In brief, when the official Church teaches, we must assent. If we
dissent, the gravity of the sin will depend on the gravity of the matter

Emmett O'Regan said...

"An apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis, and all that he says concerning doctrine, has a magisterial authority. It’s binding according to the range of that particular declaration. It does not contain any “new dogma,” but is, rather, an exposition of dogma always held and taught by the Church." (Cardinal Muller during his recent interview with Ed Pentin)

Anonymous said...

Unless the "Exuberance of Sodomy" is from God, Frances is not the pope.

Uriel said...

Thanks be to God, Anonymous, you took the words from my mouth.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Well, Conor, your position is certainly a lot easier to uphold for someone who is utterly opposed to Pope Francis, since Catholic theology does not allow for the possibility of the true successor of St. Peter binding the Faithful to formal heresy in his Ordinary Magisterium.
But it also comes with a whole other subset of problems, not least being that you would also have to hold that Christ failed in His promise that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. The view that Pope Francis is the "Man of Sin" or False Prophet of Revelation is actually based on the various fraudulent papal antichrist prophecies concocted by the heretics of the Middle Ages, which fomented the Protestant Revolt. Both Scripture and the Magisterium do not allow for the idea that the forces of evil will triumph over the Church in such a way, and no Church-approved private revelation describes the Holy See being subverted by an evil imposter-pope who will bind the Faithful to heresy and lead their souls to eternal damnation (as if Christ would countenance such an eventuality).
You would also have to assert that Pope Benedict XVI was lying when said his abdication was of his own freewill, or propose that the election of Pope Francis was in some way invalid - a position which is absolutely lacking in any credible evidence. Has it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe Pope Francis is a validly elected Roman Pontiff, and that as such, he cannot bind the Faithful to formal heresy in a magisterial document?
Just remember that all these accusations swirling around the nature of the charism of the papacy is the central crux of the prophecy of Pope Leo XIII, and for this to reach fever-pitch at this precise moment in history should be the greatest sign to anyone who knows anything about prophecy to be able to discern where we stand right now. Either the Church is about to be swept away by these floods, or it will remain standing, because it is built on the Rock.

Anonymous said...

You know what? You are in a quagmire on this Pope Francis thing and I for one am tired of it. I will no longer follow this blog or reader comments because NONE of you, even Mr. O’Regan, have any basis to make any determination what so ever. The matter can only be resolved by the Church (Pope - present or future, Cardinals, Council), or by the direct intervention of God.



Get back to what this blog was supposed to be about, or you will begin to lose more readers than just myself.

Bridget said...

With all due respect, Anonymous, did you read Emmett's last paragraph? Prophecy is playing out in real time right now. This IS the flood that's raging at the moment trying to sweep the Church away. So, it will continue to be discussed until it's resolved.

"Just remember that all these accusations swirling around the nature of the charism of the papacy is the central crux of the prophecy of Pope Leo XIII, and for this to reach fever-pitch at this precise moment in history should be the greatest sign to anyone who knows anything about prophecy to be able to discern where we stand right now. Either the Church is about to be swept away by these floods, or it will remain standing, because it is built on the Rock."

Renée said...

Jason R., Happy Canadian Thanksgiving!

Thank you for pointing out your comments about Columbus in the previous thread. In addition to the importance of Christopher Columbus to the spread of Catholicism, it is interesting to note that he set sail on the day the Jews were expelled from Spain, on the calamitous Tisha B'Av. While Spain closed the door to Jews, through Columbus's voyages, he was setting the groundwork that would allow many to find a home in the New World. Oct. 12 is also the day Babylon fell to Persia, marking the end of the Babylonian Captivity.

Given the state of our world, I can't help but wonder what some future Tisha B'Av will bring to the Jewish people and what some future October 12 will lead to their preservation.

Uriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Uriel said...

Agreeing with Bridget - the discussion of Francis/Antipope Bergoglio is germane. When else, in the entire history of the Church, has a sitting pope been accused of formal heresy? Perhaps once.

Emmett, once again you mischaracterize my position. Not only have I provided several pieces of evidence that Benedict did not validly resign the papacy under Canon 188 - which you have neglected to even address - if Benedict did not validly resign, then I do not contradict Christ's promise. If Benedict XVI is pope, HE has not promulgated heresy. If Benedict XVI is still pope, Bergoglio could not have been validly elected and deserves none of our obedience.

"Just remember that all these accusations swirling around the nature of the charism of the papacy is the central crux of the prophecy of Pope Leo XIII, and for this to reach fever-pitch at this precise moment in history should be the greatest sign to anyone who knows anything about prophecy to be able to discern where we stand right now. Either the Church is about to be swept away by these floods, or it will remain standing, because it is built on the Rock."

I beg to differ about your interpretation. The flood is not the criticism - or attacks, as you would have it - of and on Antipope Bergoglio, the flood is SPECIFICALLY called out in the original prayer to St. Michael the Archangel as penned by pope Leo XIII:

"This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity."

Our lady has said that the last offensive of Satan will be against the family. What could be worse than what we are seeing from this "papacy" - the promotion of sodomy and wickedness, the admission to holy communion of the divorced and remarried, who eat and drink to their own damnation, and the statements from the Antipope himself that most Christian marriages aren't valid, while most non-christian non-marriages are?

You are deluding yourself - because you cling to tightly to your *theories*, rather than admitting new evidence to consideration.

And before you criticize me again for not having any "credible evidence", first address that which I have provided you, and point out its deficiencies! I expect that sort of irrelevancy from SJWs, not a serious thinker like yourself.

Bridget said...

Speaking of Columbus Day, it's now officially Oct. 10th in North Korea, the anniversary of the founding of its Communist Worker's Party. We'll see later on today if Kim Jong-un chooses to do something provocative to celebrate.

Keep praying those rosaries for peace, guys!


Mark L said...


I applaud the excellent content of your comments on this most important post. I've learned a lot, and I think many of the faithful will find this post guiding and helpful in the days ahead.

Recall the reason why the Pharisees found Christ abhorrent: it was because Christ emphasized mercy over the law. This was anathema to them. They believed the law must prevail over everything - mercy included. Therefore, they were right, Christ was wrong.

Humans have always been deceived in this manner. As Pope Francis points out, it is the return of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism: the idea that we can self-perfect by adhering to the law. It is no surprise. As Christ says, when lawlessness reigns, love grows cold (Matthew 24.12). Shocked by lawlessness, we double-down in our adherence to the law. Yet in doing so we "have forgotten the heart of the law: mercy over justice." (Matthew 23.23)

In an age of lawlessness, mercy therefore becomes criticized. The Pharisees actually believed they were lovingly doing the will of God by crucifying the Son of God. Law crucified mercy. Rigidity smothered compassion.

And so we see this deception being played out before our very eyes. And none of it would be possible without the Satanic influence over us in the anonymity of the web, its social implications, which whips people up into a lather and deepens tribalism.

Mark L.

KEP said...

Emmett, you keep insisting that the Pope's "Ordinary Magisterium" is binding and infallible (free of error). That's not Catholicism. That's papolatry. You've been pointed to correction on this by those superior to you in canon law, including Edward Peters and Cardinal Burke. You're wrong. Stop the pope worship. If you can get this wrong on something so obvious as Vatican I's definition of Papal Infallibility, who knows what else you've been blinded by. It calls all of your theories into question.

Vatican I clearly states that the Pope is only infallible when speakinf ex cathedra, anf even then is onlu infallible on matters of faith and morals. You're taking what Vatican I said applies to ONLY extraordinary ex cathedra statements and applying it to everything a Pope writes in a document. On top of that, Pope Francis has also said that his speeches and sermons are part of his magisterium, not just his books. You want to go through all of his sermons aND defend everything he has said in all of his sermons too?

Stop worshiping the pope and become catholic. Thanks.

JMC said...

I agree, it's getting tiring reading this endless merry-go-round about papal infallibility. But it's also true that this is prophecy coming to pass right before our eyes. "The woman" in Biblical prophecy can either refer to Mary, or the Church, the Spouse of Christ. So I truly believe that it's significant that the Correction was made public on September 23, the very day of the Woman Clothed with the Sun. This is the Flood attempting to sweep the Woman (the Church) away.
I don't remember whether it was at Fatima or Akita, or even during one of the other Marian apparitions, but we have been promised that it is precisely when things look completely lost that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will occur. Right now everyone is holding on to the promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church; we're all forgetting that prophecy also tells us that it will *appear* to do so. That may well be the "wilderness" that the Woman will be hiding in for a "time, times, and half a time." There are many theories about how long that will be, what the word "time" represents here. I'm sure it meant something very specific to the people of John's day, but that specific meaning has been lost to us, along with the meaning of many of the other symbols used in Apocalypse/Revelations.

So, no. Sorry, Anonymous, but as much as a part of all of us probably wishes we could, we can't "give it a rest" or "move on," simply because, at this point in time, this is the crux of the matter.

Aquinas3000 said...

A brief response Emmett (perhaps more later) but I am not starting from the premise that AL is heretical. I am starting from the premise that there are ambiguous passages that the Pope needs to clarify.

Mark W said...

“Mark W, I think you'll find this article interesting. It's about the devil being dismissed as a driving force behind mass shootings. My mom actually said today that the thought crossed her mind that Stephen Paddock was physically possessed by the devil. I think it's possible!


So what IS the significance of the attack happening on the Feast of Guardian Angels??? You mentioned that a couple times.”

Hi Bridget,

Yeah, that’s a fascinating article, and that’s kinda what I was getting at.

I’ve been told many times by liberals (politically) and atheists, that in the Middle Ages, what was seen as demonic possession was really just mental illness. They just didn’t understand it back then because, you know, them being so much more backward than we are today how could they understand ANYTHING as well as we understand it today.

One problem is that we are preconditioned these days to look for scientific answers to everything. Even here on this blog, we’ve seen people that preferred the scientific answer to the spiritual question. That’s what happens when the demonic attack in the physical realm. We’re preconditioned to assume that there’s a scientific reason for all of this.

But what if the liberals and atheists above are wrong? In such a case, we’d see exactly what we see today. People all over the world trying to rationalize what happened in Vegas based on the modernist scientific understanding of mental health (or lack thereof).

Have you noticed that these are focused mainly on the US? Why? Our access to firearms is a common assumption, but that really doesn’t hold up. There are plenty of firearms in Africa, and Russia and the former Soviet Republics. There are firearms all over the Middle East and Southeast Asia. There are quite a few scattered around Latin America as well. Yes, we have more per capita than anywhere else on earth, but the logic doesn’t add-up that there are absolutely no mentally ill people in any other part of the world that would pick-up an AK-47 and open fire on a crowd of innocents.

There was a National Catholic Register article last March that said there’s been an “alarming increase in demonic activitiy being reported by those who work in the exorcism ministry.”

Add to all this the fact that they can’t find an easy motive for the Vegas shootings. They’re eventually going to fall back on the mental illness reason. I don’t know if the shooter was possessed, or oppressed, or anything like that, but I do suspect a very strong demonic influence in his life; and with the shooter in Aurora, and the one at Sandy Hook, and the two at Columbine, etc.

So, yes, I think it’s ultimately demonic in origin.


Mark W said...


As to the importance of the feast day, I’m not sure. I can construct quite a few connections, but none are easily seen
The Feast of the Guardian Angels was first celebrated by the Franciscans in 1500. The Franciscans and Pope Francis share a namesake.

The Feast of the Guardian Angels was first put on the calendar by Paul V in 1608. Paul V fled Siena for Rome at one point in his life, and some/most inscriptions about him bear the word “Romanus”. A connection with Petrus Romanus from the List of St. Malachi?

That particular feast day was sufficiently important to Josemaria Escriva that he founded Opus Dei on October 2, 1928.

Leo XIII elevated this particular day to a Feast of the Third Class.

According to my Diurnal, the chapter for that day was Exodus 23:20-21 – “Behold I will send My Angel who shall go before thee and keep thee in thy journey and bring thee into athe place that I have prepared. Take notice of him and hear his words.” The Gospel reading is Matthew 18:10 – “See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Perhaps most poignantly given what happened, the Collect is: “O God, Who in Thine ineffable providence hast deigned to send Thy holy Angels to watch over us, grant to Thy suppliants always to find safety in their protection, and in eternity go share their happiness.”

Lastly, I’ve read that, when it was first created, it was originally held to be an extension of the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel. That might make this something of a demonic attack on the Archangel himself directly.

I don’t know what to make of all this, but this is what I’ve been able to scour-up so far. Maybe one of you can see something here that I’m missing.

Pax Christi sit semper vobiscum,

Emmett O'Regan said...

Fair enough Aquinas3000! Apologies! It's just difficult to keep a track of all these different theories and reasons for opposing Pope Francis. It's easy to lose track.

Emmett O'Regan said...

KEP, you obviously don't/can't or refuse to understand what the Church teaches on infallibility as opposed to the protection from error in faith and morals in the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, which is a separate albeit related teaching. When have I said that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible? Have you studied enough theology to be able to distinguish between these finer points of detail? I'm not going to bother responding to any more circular reasoning on this subject. If you want to try to understand what the Church teaches on this subject, then either try to absorb some of my earlier comments, or go off and do some research on your own.

Mark W said...


This is about 70km northeast of Fatima itself.

Bridget said...

Woah! That looks like something out of The Ten Commandments.

Bridget said...

Mark, thank you for the informantive response!

This is doubly interesting then isn't it? As liberal as Pope Francis seems to be, he actually is very "old school" when it comes to the devil. He knows what's up!


"Pope Francis parts ways with the current preaching in the church, which is far too silent about the devil and his insidious ways or reduces him to a mere metaphor."

Jason R. said...

You've touched on a very important point I think Mark W. that explains much of the seemingly inhuman crimes that people like the gunman in Las Vegas are capable of.

Though very careful distinctions should be made between mental illnesses with a physiological basis such as bipolar disorder (which I suffer from as have many relatives in ny family tree) or schizophrenia, personality disorders which do not have a physiological basis are an entirely different ball of wax.

As just one example, the psychiatric community has been ringing alarm bells for years now that narcissistic personality disorder (one of the most dangerous ones as involving the threat it poses to other people) is reaching epidemic proportions in our societies as never has been seen before, with a now estimated 10% of all people in Western industrialized countries having the full-blown disorder, with even more being somewhere along the spectrum, and at the same time the Church's exorcists ringing similar alarm bells along almost the exact same time-frame that deominic possession and obsession are as well reaching the levels of an unprecedented epidemic, well, especially when looking at the symptoms and causes of narccistic personality disorder, it's almost impossibly not to wonder whether these two phenomenon are actually one in the same, the only difference being the medical vs. spiritual lenses used to observe what is going on.

MaryP said...

Really scary quotes from papal spokesman:


MaryP said...

Emmett, you say:
"You are still not fully grasping what the Church actually teaches about the teaching authority of the ordinary non-universal magisterium Mary P. Yes, it is fallible, and may contain some deficiencies when it comes to areas not related to faith and morals, such as science, politics, economics, etc. Yet the Church teaches that there is a Divine assistance given even in the ordinary magisterium which prevents it from teaching error in areas related to faith and morals, which is quite separate from the dogma of papal infallibility. So while it is fallible, it cannot contain heresy. This teaching is not something new which I have just dreamt up. Do the research and you will see for yourself that this is true. It's just not a very well known teaching to anyone who hasn't studied theology."

You are very confused. I am a theologian, by the way. infallible means without error. You have not grasped the distinction between the ordinary universal magisterium (of the pope and of bishops) and the ordinary non-universal magisterium (of the pope or of a bishop).

The pope's (or a bishop's) exercise of the ordinary non-universal magisterium is not infallible AND THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT PREVENTED FROM ERROR. IT IS A CONTRADICTION TO SAY SOMETHING IS NOT INFALLIBLE YET PROTECTED FROM ERROR, as you say above. That doesn't mean we don't respect it, or ignore it. But it does mean that where it deviates from the ordinary universal magisterium, we must not follow it. The dubia and the correctio both ask if the logical implications of AL violate certain infallible teachings of the ordinary universal magisterium. The answers of the pope in letters supports the heretical implications, and his answers through his spokesmen do so even more. But always qualified with qualifications that try to take the question out of the"always and everywhere" context that is the very context of Catholic truth.

Mark W said...

I just found something kinda interesting. Not sure what to make of it just yet. Bear with me, this is going to take some explaining.

We just had the Revelation 12 event in the sky over our heads. We’ve discussed this here before, so I'm not going to go into those particular details. But there might have been more to the story.

First off, the planet Saturn - Saturn is the Roman version of the Greek god Kronos. According to the Greek myth, Kronos was said to have devoured his children as he feared being overthrown by his offspring as he had overthrown his own father. Kronos was also seen as the personification of time, and time was seen as wearing down all mortal things.

The next few constellations along the elliptic, after Virgo, are Libra and Sagittarius. But just north of these two is Ophiuchus and Serpens. The “leg” of Ophiuchus extends down into the elliptic, so the planets actually cross a small portion of this constellation as well.

Ophiuchus is depicted as holding a snake, which is the constellation Serpens. Serpens is divided into two parts: Serpens Caput (serpent’s head) and Serpens Cauda (serpent’s tail). Serpens Caput is comprise of, you guessed it, seven stars. Just above Serpens Caput is Corona Borealis (“Northern Crown”). Corona Borealis also has seven stars. So just above the head of the serpent of seven stars, is a crown of seven stars in the form of Corona Borealis.

Both Ophiuchus and Serpens were part of the original 88 constellations cataloged by Ptolemy in the 2nd Century AD.

Ophiuchus is often depicted as holding or carrying Serpens. But is it a great stretch to see this kind of thing as St. Michael the Archangel fighting THE serpent?

Now, here’s the really interesting bit. While Jupiter was doing it’s retrograde dance to remain in Virgo’s “womb” for 9.5 months, Saturn was also doing a retrograde dance around the southern extreme of Ophiuchus. In fact, if you draw a line from Theta Ophiuchus to Sabik, Saturn was just past that line on the 23rd of September. In fact, Saturn crossed that line on the 16th of July. In fact, Saturn spent the entirety of St. Michael's Lent in this part of the sky.

So here we have Saturn – the planet that often represents Satan – moving across a double constellation at the end of the gestation period for the Revelation 12 sign. That planet, in its mythological Greek origins, represented a god that devoured his own young - here to devour the offspring of the Revelation 12 sign. All this with the double constellation having a serpents head of seven stars, and a crown made of seven starts just above its head.

I’m not sure exactly what to make of this just yet, but on the face of it, it certainly seem significant. What are the odds that Saturn would be in that exact spot in the sky at that exact moment?

Mark W said...

Jason - I kinda thought the distinction didn't need to be made. People with bipolar disease and schizophrenia, don't typically buy 50+ firearms and ammo to run them for hours, and then go out and gun down 500+ people. Modern medicine can diagnose psych ailments, but it falls back on psych ailments when it can't figure out what to call demonic activity. Modernists will never admit that.

KEP said...

Emmett is very confused. He knows more than you, a theologians, as well as Edward Peters, Cardinal Burke, and Vatican I.

The Pope's ordinary magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals but not in other matters; and the pope's extraordinary magisterium is also only infallible on matters of faith and morals and not infallible in other matters. It's a distinction without a difference.

KEP said...

I meant according to Emmett, that both the pope's ordinary magisterium and extraordinary magisterium are both infallible on matters of faith and morals, and both the pope's extraordinary and ordinary magisterium are fallible on issues other than faith and morals. It's a distinction without a difference, and is actually heretical.

Bridget said...

Remember the discussion about the Red Dragon NASA image over on the Our Lady of Revelation post?


The discussion kinda died out when it was figured out that the image was an old photo of Saturn from the 80s. I can't believe we didn't think of Saturn devouring his son before! Nice work Mark! Goya's painting immediately came to mind.


Emmett O'Regan said...

KEP, you are out of your depth, and I will not tolerate your disrespectful tone much longer. Accusing me of heresy/papalotary/ultramontanism is calumny, and your accusations against me are not welcome here. The Ordinary Magisterium is non-infallible and non-irreformable, but still requires submission of will and intellect (religious assent), and is offered Divine assistance in the Holy Spirit which protects it from heresy. It's teachings are reformable, meaning they can be changed to suit the particular needs of the Church at any given time, given prudential judgement, which itself may be in error (but cannot contradict faith and morals). The Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible and requires assent of faith. I'm no longer going to respond to your comments.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Mary P, I do know the difference between the ordinary magisterium and the ordinary and universal magisterium. If you are a theologian, then surely you understand the Divine assistance which is offered to the pope even in the ordinary non-universal magisterium? How else do you explain the quote from St. John Paul II mentioned above?

Jason R. said...

I have posted these before, but have still not seen any answers to how those who believe that the Holy Father is promoting heresy can reconcile their beliefs with these two very authorative statements (most particularly Can. 752):

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 752 seems to me to be very much referring to the exact situation that is occuring right now, one which we are obliged by the Faith to have a religious submission of the intellect and will to. Anyone who doesn't partake in this submission appears to be in direct conflict with Can. 752. If they are not, I'm still waiting for an explanation on this.

p.s. Mark W., yes, I guess the distinction was implicit in what you wrote between those mental illnesses that medical science has a good explanation for (and greatly appear to be congential), opposed to those that are catagorized as personality disorders, that very much still have medical science scratching their collective heads over. I guess I made the distinction explicit for those readers that might not recognize the difference between the two; I very, very much agree with you that things like Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Anti-social Personality Disorder (which used to be referred to as being a sociopath) most likely have a spiritual element of demonic influence playing a very big part.

Renée said...

I've got to wonder if the chaos and loss of control by the elitist political-media-entertainment-education complex we're seeing a piece of this prophetic puzzle. Trump is doing a magnificent job of destroying both the Democrat and Republican parties and with each new scandal and loss of authority in one of these institutions, a little voice in my head whispers, 'Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!'

If the powers that be do lose their authority, society could again turn to the Church for support and guidance.

Jason R. said...

I'll out myself as what Americans call a liberal while mist of the rest of the world would call a social democrat, so I have quite a different take on Donald Trump but still feel as encouraged that people are fed up with the Neoliberalist agenda of Obama and previous POTUS's before him. My political views are fully governed by the social doctrine of the Church, so I can see people turning back to the Church, whether left or right, in the era of global decline we are seeing in morals as well as our current crony capitalist laissez-faire economic policies.

Jason R. said...

To go along with the fires in Portugal, it looks like Californian wine country is being hard now as well:

California fires: Deadly wildfires sweep through wine country - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41559875

From my own experience of living just south of heavily forested areas, for the last three summers wild fires have raged out of control in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and this year especially, British Columbia, like nothing we have ever experienced before, nothing even close. In some areas close to me they registered the lowest amount if precipitation on record (e.g. Regina I believe this summer had precipitation measured only in millilitres it was so sparse).

The smoke was do thick even down south these past summers that I could barely go outside due to asthma, and I had to wear a full-fledged gasmask (Dutch army surplus) just to be able to mow the lawn!

Renée said...

I didn't mean to imply that I am a Trump supporter, just that he is an effective wrecking ball for the established political parties. The big question is what will come after Trump?

Actually, Trump is just a small part of what is going on. The NFL concussion and anthem scandals have ensured that football will never again have the hold on middle America that it had in the past. Will another sport fill that empty space?

The complicity of all of Hollywood in the Harvey Weinstein scandal along with its increasing politicization means that it will never have the influence that it did at one time. Where will all those entertainment dollars go?

The news media and higher education are also in self-destruct mode. All the old institutions are failing. What will take their place? Will we be a divided country or one transformed and united by Christ?

Virtue said...

4.1 Magnitude earthquake in San Jose, California. Relatively weak earthquake, but close to the deadly wildfires in Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties, so perhaps significant.

MaryP said...


Emmett O'Regan said...

Jason R, I've found that the tactics of the various individuals above who insist on dissenting to the Ordinary Magisterium, is to not answer any pertinent questions themselves, and instead attempt to make me look foolish by repeatedly insisting that I am proposing that the Divine assistance given to the pope in the ordinary non-universal magisterium is the same as infallibility. I have never once said that the ordinary non-universal magisterium is infallible, and have repeatedly stated that it is reformable in nature, and can be mistaken in the prudential application of its judgements in certain very rare cases. The Ordinary Magisterium is fallible (or non-infallible - however you like to put it), but offered protection through Divine assistance when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

I've never seen any of these objectors attempt to answer any of my own retorts, such as how their understanding of the clear Church teaching of the promise of Divine assistance given in the Ordinary Magisterium fits in with their very narrow worldview of the scope of the papal magisterium. I strongly suspect that the true objective here is in repeatedly pointing to the fallible nature of the Ordinary Magisterium is so that they don't need to give submission of the will and intellect (as per CIC can. 752); and also in order to imply that the Ordinary Magisterium can contain elements of heresy, they have to completely ignore the aspect of Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit promised even when not exercising the Ordinary Magisterium in "a definitive manner":

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)

As Donum Veritatas states, it is only trained theologians who can withhold such religious assent to any particular aspect of the Ordinary Magisterium, and they must do so privately, bringing their objections before the relevant Church authorities, so as not to lead the lay faithful into confusion. Which is what I'm afraid is being done here by some obstinate individuals who refuse to give submission of the will and intellect to the Magisterium.

Emmett O'Regan said...

From the CDF document Professio fidei (para 10):

"The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act".
To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgement or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with those truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore 'tuto doceri non potest'.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Donum Veritatas (para 17):

"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 Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.
One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful."

Emmett O'Regan said...

Donum Veritatas (para 25):

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission."

Bridget said...

Hi Emmett! Seriously, thank you for your posts and helpful comments. I think I have a decent grasp on the situation. So thank you again! But the ONLY thing I don't get is this...I understand the filial correction is illicit in nature because it was made public. But it was originally presented privately to Pope Francis weeks before. Do you have the faintest idea why he didn't engage with them? Surely he saw the publication of the filial correction coming since that's what happened with the dubia. And the confusion and harm that would inevitably follow. ???? Surely there will be a good explaination down the line, but at the moment that's the only thing I don't get.

(P.S. you said at the beginning of the post the correction was made public on May 24th- oops! Just wanted to give you a heads up!)

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Bridget! The authors of the Correctio did not give the Holy Father adequate time for a response, and instead went directly to the mass media within a matters of weeks of submitting their text to him. This obviously contravenes the guidelines for dissenting theologians laid out in Donum Veritatas, and was a tactic for leveraging public opinion through inciting widespread dissent. The Holy See does not have to answer any questions of a theological nature; and any answers are almost always given via the medium of the CDF. He probably didn't engage with them because they are outright accusing him of heresy, which again, contradicts the idea of the charism of the Petrine ministry - even when speaking in the non-universal Ordinary Magisterium. So if he answered them, it would make it seem as if they had some credibility. He also probably knew that directly engaging with them would be pointless, and they were going to go down this route no matter what. Realistically, for the sake of Church unity, these theologians should have kept their dissent private, and quietly disagreed, either waiting for constructive dialogue through the proper channels or for this pontificate to change hands. The content of AL is non-infallible, reformable, and its prudential order may be called into question at some point in the future, where it can be shifted back to a more rigorist application of sacramental discipline. They should have allowed for this hope, instead of pursuing a path that will ultimately lead to schism, which can be vastly more difficult to heal once consolidated over time.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Pastor Aeternus - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Chap 4:6-7):

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Bridget said...

Oooooooooh. Thanks, Emmett! That makes sense now.

This will be lengthy, but I wanted to share some odd coincidences that have been happening. Has anyone else been noticing this in other areas of their lives having nothing to do with Catholic prophecy?

Last week I finished reading The Light Between Oceans - a post WWI story about a couple who has to give up a baby they found and claimed as their own after the wife had suffered miscarriages. Anyway, check out this small passage...

"He put his hands in his pockets and nodded toward the picture Isabel was looking at. 'I've bent that fella's ear in my time, I can tell you. Archangel Michael. There he is with his sword in his hand, but he's got his shield half raised too. Like he's still making up his mind about something."

After I finished that book, I started reading The Devil in the White City. In the passage below I thought it was interesting that the Fatima date came up. The story is "the true tale of two men-the brilliant architect behind the legendary 1983 World's Fair, striving to secure America's place in the world; and the cunning serial killer who used the fair to lure its victims to their death."

"In Paris, America had made a half hearted effort to show off its artistic, industrial, and scientific talent. 'We shall be ranked among those nations who have shown themselves careless of appearances,' wrote the Chicago Tribune's Paris correspondent on May 13, 1889."
"The nation needed an opportunity to top the French, in particularly to 'out-Eiffel Eiffel.' Suddenly the idea of hosting a great exposition to commemorate Columbus's discovery of the New World became irresistible." (Since we've been discussing Columbus recently)

Bridget said...

Last thing.

Last year I was good about reading the daily readings and reflections online. But I've slacked and been lazy and haven't read them in several months. Whoops. Last night I decided to get back into the habit, and guess what! It was about the Lord setting Jonah out to Nineveh! Isn't that weird? Also, I thought the gospel for today was timely. Honestly the gospels for the past few weeks have been timely. It's the story of Martha and Mary.

Gospel LK 10:38-42
Jesus entered a village
where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him.
She had a sister named Mary
who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak.
Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said,
"Lord, do you not care
that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving?
Tell her to help me."
The Lord said to her in reply,
"Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things.
There is need of only one thing.
Mary has chosen the better part
and it will not be taken from her."

I couldn't help but see the parallel with the currect situation in the Church. Maybe this is a stretch, but Martha is running around and stressed out trying to get everything straight before their dinner with Jesus (those opposing Pope Francis about AL and up in arms about rules surrounding the Eucharist??). Mary is instead silent and listening to Jesus (giving assent of intellect and will to the Pope?). Does anyone else see that?

Mark W said...

Yeah, Bridget, I've noticed it. Not to make too long a story out of this, but I've been dealing with some issues lately (partially caused by Emmett, I might add). I was reading St. John of the Cross - Dark Night of the Soul - for a little inspiration, but it didn't really help. I was thinking of it as I got into the car two days ago. I decided to turn on Catholic Answers as a bit of a distraction, and there they were discussing the Dark Night of the Soul and the idea of perseverance that I'd been thinking a lot about since this thread and the previous one was posted.

Mark W said...

And honestly, I'm going to take a break from this place for a while. I've come to the conclusion that this is no longer a spiritually healthy place for people like me.

Jason R. said...

That's a great analogy Bridget!!

Thank you Emmett for answering my question on Can. 752 (and then some!). This seems so cut and dry to me, and I'm not being factious when I write that I really don't understand why it isn't to others... as for the people who don't think the Holy Father is really the pope, that's another matter altogether, but for those that do I find it baffling, especially since the rules are so staight-forward on our obligations in Can. 752... it does not mince words.

JMC said...

Thank you, Emmett. Your last two comments here have brought everything into sharp focus. What I'm taking away from this is, while their concerns over AL may be genuine, the fact that they violated protocol actually weakens their position.

Aprígio Melo said...


Uriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Uriel said...

Jason - Thank you, yes. I 100% agree - as odious as I find it, if I believed that Bergoglio was the pope I, and all other Catholics, would be bound to obey AL and his other instructions. Indeed, the saints command us not only to obey our superiors, but insofar as possible to confrom our wills and judgement to theirs.

But I do not. I struggled for a long time to conform my will to "Francis" teachings, especially during his visit to America. Then came Barnhardt's first pieces of evidence - Benedict might not have validly resigned. It was to me a Eureka moment - the reason that I did not see the Holy Spirit working in the actions of the Pope... was because he was not the Pope at all.

Still I remained "on the fence" for more than a year afterwards, in fear that I might be mistaken, but now more than ever I am completely certain that the spirit moving this false Papacy is the anti-Holy Spirit, the spirit of the AntiChrist. And I am sure this will be borne out in the coming months - perhaps even the coming days.

Everyone who believes in "Francis" says that he is the pope of Mercy, looking to open the doors to as many as can be brought into the Church.

But his mercy is a false mercy. He says, "Go and sin however much you want, for you are forgiven! I don't care what you do."

Real mercy, the mercy of Jesus Christ, says, "God died for you. He loves you. You are forgiven. Go, therefore, and sin no more."

It is not Pharisitical to warn people away from sin, from the injury they do themselves, to wish for them to be freed from slavery.

It is not Pelagian to pray, "O my God, I am heartily sorry, for having offended thee... I FIRMLY RESOLVE, with the help of thy grace, to SIN NO MORE and avoid the near occasion of sin."

It is not real repentance, without which there can be no effective mercy, to so obstinately persist in sin, which is an offence against God, and against Jesus Christ, coequally God, who loved us so much he died for us. Though we cannot avoid sin, sin is proof that we do not love God *enough*. It is impossible to be perfect, to never sin, but it is always possible to resist every individual sin. And sin, especially sin to which we are enslaved, drives out the love of God.

I hope and pray that, whatever the truth of the situation is, it may be made perfectly clear to all believers, and soon... and that no one, especially myself, may be obstinate in the face of Truth.

MaryP said...

This document of JPII sums it up. The nature of a "definite act" (defining act) is contained deep in it. And more


And regarding the sorts of teaching you reference, it says:

As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.38

Footnotes, interviews, statements explicitly contrary to the universal magisterium, and statements through spokesmen do not qualify for any kind of assent.

Mark W said...

Spiritually healthy place or not, I’ve been looking at the sacred astronomy ideas and just came across something that’s interesting. I want you lot to watch for something. You may see something that I miss, or it may be something very obvious.

Everyone keep an eye out for events that might be a sign associated with this –

“The Messages of the Three Angels

Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of water.’” (Revelation 14:6-7 RSV-CE)

This could be something that happens within the Church, or something that happens in the secular world. It could also be nothing at all. I don’t really have a feel for what it might be, but I won’t be at all surprised if it’s something internal to the Church.

The temporal focal point is roughly October 26th. So anything that happens between maybe the 20th and the 31st of October is fair game.

If this turns out to be something, then I’ll explain. If it turns out to be nothing, then it’s just that and everyone can move on.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Now, earthquake swarms at La Palma in the Canary Islands:

Bridget said...

For those interested, message to Simona from Our Lady of Zaro on Oct. 8th (from the Facebook page, I don't know what's going on with the official website? Anyone?)

Message of our lady of zaro of 08.10.2017 given to simona

I saw mother of zaro; she had a white veil on her head, a blue coat on her shoulders that would go down to her barefoot feet on which she had a white rose. His dress was white with a heart of white roses on his chest, in life a golden belt with a white rose, his arms were open as a reception, in his right hand had a crown of the holy rosary formed by drops like Ice.

Praise Jesus Christ

" my children, the greatest gift for me is to see you here in my blessed woods on this day to me so dear.
My children, let me enter your heart, make me part of your life.
Children, I love you and I want to bring you all to your father.
My children, once again, I repeat how hard times are waiting for you, but I do not tell you this to frighten you, but to prepare you for when you are ready to fight a good battle and do not find yourself unprepared.
My children, my heart is filled with love for each of you, but is constantly torn apart by the screams of pain, of help, by the demands of justice, the justice that in this world is missing: true justice is only the divine! Pray my children, pray.
Man too often takes place in the place of God wanting to be a judge, the judgment is only of God. You, my beloved children, pray and ask that the will of God always be done in every man, he is a good father and right and he only wants what is good for you.
My children love you, I love you, I love you.
Children let you love, place your life in your life, and he will bless you with all blessings and blessings.
My children, a large division will be in the church, sounds of war are heard from the west to the east, from the south to the north.
My children, hard times are the time to come.
Children, the petals that fall from my heart are the thanks that the Lord divulges on each of you."
While my mother said that I saw many petals fall from the heart of rose in her chest and, despite the fall of many petals, her heart did not fall in size nor roses lost beauty.
" my children repent and pray, make fioretti and sacrifices, clench the crown of the Holy Rosary, the strongest weapon against evil. Worship my children, learn to kneel before the Holy Sacrament of the altar.
I love you kids.
Now I give you my holy blessing.
Thank you for coming to me."

Jason R. said...

Is it possible that La Palma may erupt before Oct. 13th as the chastisement? Perhaps the Spanish political rending was a foreshadowing of a great physical breaking away, that being part of La Palma breaking away into the ocean... I think this cluster of tremours in the Canary Islands is the most serious call to repentance yet.

Jason R. said...

This I think is meant as a wakeup call as well, missing the Earth at a level where geosynchronous takes place is an incredibly close miss.

House-sized asteroid will pass by Earth at just above satellite altitude


Jason R. said...

That should have read "where geosychronous orbiting takes place..."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 348   Newer› Newest»