Matthew 16:3 ...and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
Or to quote that well known philosopher Bob Dylan: don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!
Pope Francis is not a new phenomena and as such is entirely predictable. There is nothing random about what he is doing. Modernists have dreamed about this for centuries now. Pope Francis is simply living the modernist dream.
The sad thing is that most Catholics today don't even know that the Church has been fighting modernism for a long time. They don't even understand what it is and why it is so evil.
Padraig and Brian. I usually agree with you. While I'm not willing to go as far as you, I have great concerns about Francis. But I think the opposing side also could be under evil influences in pushing for things that are not there trying to cause confusion. Not saying that's what you are doing, but what some of these pushing these unverified stories are doing. It is just Like what's going on in US right now. Evil on left pushing anti-Trump agenda no matter what. I also think evil is blinding people on the other side who are defending no matter what too. Not waiting for truth in all areas. Think of it this way. Wouldn't Stan want to work both sides hard against each other to cause deeper confusion an deeper divide?
These are not "unverified stories." They follow exactly the trajectory this pope has been following his entire papacy, from the "breeding like rabbits" quip, to praising Emma Boningo, to castigating the woman with 7 children by c section, to saying contraception is ok to avoid Zika, to having demonic population controllers belong to pontifical academies and speak as honored guests at Vatican conferences. You're in denial if you can't see this, unfortunately. By the way, not too long ago I was roundly castigated and banned on this forum. Today my warnings seem prescient. On this issue I'm afraid that, despite current pushback, I'm going to be viewed as prescient again. I know for a fact this is NOT "unverified." And I mean no offense whatsoever. Honestly.
Brian. Several years ago long before the priest scandals hit the Church I knew some of it because of listening to Fr John O'Connor and other whistle blowers who were viciously silenced. I told my family what I knew about the horrors that were going onandabout some of the bad seminaries. My sister stormed out and didn't speak to me for three days she has since apologized, baffled that I could have known. Wish I didn't know. It was years of grief for the Church before anyone else in my circle knew. So I know what you mean about prescience. Easy to understand poor Cassandra warning Troy frantically not to let the wooden horse in but no one would believe her. It gives us no joy to be right.
Not sure if we can post links again, but the following can be found on papal encyclicals dot org. In my opinion far too many up into the highest levels of the church apparently failed to read this document and sign their name on the dotted line: THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910. To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord. (Continued)
(Continued) Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents. Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
The Oath Against Modernism was in force up until 1967. Sadly they decided to do away with it. Modernism is a defined heresy and it was recognized as a great danger to the faith. Hence the initiation of the oath. Now why on Earth would you do away with an oath against the very danger that was sweeping through the Church?
Yeah,makes no sense at all. It was like some sort of Diabolical Disorientation had entered the church.
Kind of interesting how at the same time they removed the prayer to St Michael and started de-emphasizing the Rosary and Our Lady. Diabolical indeed.
The Oath that the Pope had to take on taking office to maintain the Traditional Teachings of the Church was done away with too. I wonder why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_oath_(traditionalist_Catholic) 'I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order that may surface; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess; I swear to God Almighty and the Saviour Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.'
Hi Praetorian, I can't speak for David but maybe David was refering to Cardinal Ratzinger words, from years ago? Remember there was a time when the aids epidemic was speading through the male homosexual community at lightning speed and many of these poor reprobates that had Aids, were still committing the horrendous act of homosexual impurity with other 'unsuspecting' homosexual perverts and infecting these poor people 'knowingly!'. I think, Cardinal Ratzinger stated at the time, that homosexuality being a morally intrinsically evil act! was made even worse! by those infected with aids who knowingly committed this act and thus gave that disease to other poor unfortunate souls! He suggested that perhaps the use of a condom in this instance would be a more responsible/morally acceptable act; or the lesser of two evils in this regard! He was of course refering to the added evil act of malicious intent! Being the deliberate and reckless act of infecting someone with a death sentence! Cardinal Ratizinger implied that the malicious intent of those involved, was a great and added evil, which compounded the evil act of homosexuality!
Contraception is intrinsically evil, without exception. The use of condoms in the marital act is intrinsically evil, always. This case you outline has nothing whatsoever to do with Humanae Vitae because it has nothing to do with the marital embrace and thus is not about contraception. Homosexuality is mutual masturbation. The use of a condom in this scenario would then be morally neutral and would not require a change to Humanae Vitae but the scenario itself is intrinsically evil and can never be condoned. I wrote about this subject years ago. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3108 America Magazine Spreads Disinformation About Church's Position by Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM The Wanderer Printing Company, September 28, 2000 "Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS, Prophylactics or Family Values?" by Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau of the Pontifical Council for the Family, appeared with little fanfare in the April 19, 2000 L'Osservatore Romano. The beautiful simplicity and intelligence with which Msgr. Suaudeau discussed the very real tragedy of the AIDS epidemic, and the enlightened response of the Catholic Church and her varied relief efforts, displayed an unequaled depth of compassion and understanding on the part of the author. Despite the difficulty of the issue and the powerful forces of political correctness surrounding it, the article was orthodox and faithful to the principles of Catholic sexual ethics. It was a veritable breath of fresh air to those of us in America soured on the politically correct treatment of AIDS by such documents as The Many Faces of AIDS , issued by the administrative board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988, and rightfully denounced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time. Unfortunately, on Friday, September 15, 2000, a UPI wire story appeared in major papers across the country and the Internet. "Vatican Newspaper Says Condom Use Tolerated to Battle AIDS," cried the headlines. The opening line, tabloid style, claimed, "In what amounts to a theological U-turn, the Vatican's official newspaper has said that condom use may be permissible for containing the spread of the AIDS virus." Catholics were dismayed, for there simply is no such thing as a "theological U-turn," as such would be to admit that Catholic "truths" are transient, and situational ethics have won the day at the Vatican. How could the Vatican contradict one of the foundations of moral theology, that "the Church cannot support evil means so that a good end may be achieved"? (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1756). Interestingly enough, the UPI article originated as a piece in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on September 15, which contained details conveniently eliminated from the subsequent UPI wire story, which received far wider press. It seems that the "hints" at a "reversal" of the 1988 Vatican denunciation of The Many Faces of AIDS, which embraced condoms for containing the spread of AIDS, were only conclusions drawn by authors writing for America magazine, from an analysis of an article appearing in a recent edition of L'Osservatore Romano. "Tolerant Signals: The Vatican's New Insights on Condoms for HIV Prevention," found in the September 23, 2000 edition of America, was written by Jon D. Fuller, S.J., M.D., and James F. Keenan, S.J. Where did these authors find these new "tolerant signals" by the Vatican concerning condoms? Unbelievably, they claim to have found these hints hidden within Msgr. Suaudeau's excellent April 19 article itself. How this as-of-yet unpublished article from America, a marginal liberal Catholic theological journal, came to be reviewed by a staff writer of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, remains a mystery. However, some of the quotations in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article of September 15 may serve to illuminate this mystery: "Bishop Anthony Bosco of Greensburg, Pa., a coauthor of that 1988 statement on AIDS, told the Post-Gazette he now feels vindicated. "'This proves to me that maybe the logic that led me to that conclusion follows from sound moral principles. Maybe Cardinal Joseph Bernardin helped from heaven, because he was on that committee, too,' Bosco said, in a reference to the late archbishop of Chicago, who died in 1998. "Bosco had urged his fellow bishops to say that condom use was the lesser of two evils for both married couples where one spouse was HIV positive and for those who would not refrain from promiscuity." In 1988, in the document The Many Faces of AIDS, the American bishops, at Bosco's insistence, wrote, "educational efforts, if grounded in the broader moral vision [of sexuality], could include accurate information about prophylactic devices or other practices proposed by some medical experts as potential means of preventing AIDS. We are not promoting the use of prophylactics, but merely providing information that is part of the factual picture." At the time in 1988, an article appearing in L'Osservatore Romano responded: "To seek the solution to the disease in the promotion of the use of prophylactics is to take a path that is not only unreliable from a technical point of view, but also and above all, unacceptable from a moral point of view." In the end, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article last week: "The bishops buried The Many Faces of AIDS after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, denounced it in a letter to the Vatican's representative to the United States. Read the rest at the link
I believe and understand what you are saying Brian but I think David may have been referring to this scenario when he mentioned the condom issue. I may be wrong. But I believe David to be a good soul who is searching for the truth and looking at all events in the church, trying to navigate his way, just as we all are!
A woman can only get pregnant 7 days a month. Even then, condoms have a real world failure rate of 20%. A person can get AIDS 31 days a month, so the real world failure rate is multiplied by 3. What kind of a ghoul would recommend anything with that kind of failure rate, when the consequences are not pregnancy but death by disease. It would be worse than giving someone permission to play Russian roulette with more than 3 of 6 chambers loaded. The only loving advice is not to play at all. One cannot, must not do evil that "good" may come of it.
It may be the scenario he envisioned, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Humanae Vitae and would not require a secret commission to re evaluate Humanae Vitae regardless.
What are you saying Brian? Are you saying that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict the XVI, was wrong?, [a ghoul] to suggest such a thing! I agree that this has nothing to do with Humanae Vitae, but Cardinal Ratzinger did suggest that the use of a condom in the above instance/regard was a more responsible and moral act for those involved: and with reference to this and only this, is where poor David made his faux pas?
