So sad to hear about your father Sending prayers Good post, glad to know priests are fed up I sure hope you are right about this rotting Church being on the way out I can't wait It hurts my heart to witness the dismantling of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Didn't Bertha B Cobb publish the Arlo book in Keene back in the early 20th century? My 4th grade teacher, who was old back in the 50's, was from Keene and read from the Arlo book aloud to us after lunch each day. I bought one when my son was young and read it to him (Bertha B and Ernest Cobb, authors) Great story
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/rosary-against-pope.html?m=1 Rosary: against the Pope? Today millions of Poles are going to the peripheries of their country to say the Holy Rosary, which is a wonderful way to celebrate the feast of the Holy Rosary, it is also a demonstration of the power of the Polish Church. Could our English bishops or the Germans across one of Poland's borders be able to motivate such numbers of people? The Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary is of course 'political', it marks the destruction of Islamic forces at the Battle of Lepanto, in the same way the importance of the conversion of Languedoc through St Dominic and the Rosary was important, because of the need to have strong Christian Lords on the borders of Christendom to counter the insurgence of Islam on the Iberian peninsula. One political strand which I find interesting are the ecclesiastical politics of this event in Poland. Though Polish bishops would deny this was an anti-immigrant demonstration, the borders with Russia and the tensions there since the rise of Russian aggression against Ukraine and its other neighbours are as much a concern as the immigrant crisis. In Poland national identity is linked to its Christian identity. The British media see this event as an indication of Poland's far rightness. For Catholics there has to be the question, "What would Pope Francis say? " though he has backtracked on open borders, as has Mrs Merkel, it seems pretty likely he would strongly disagree with the Polish bishop's and their people's actions. Yet the Polish bishops seem often in strong disagreement with the Pope, over Amoris Laetitia and JPII's magisterium, as much as over the issue of borders. Here, a small group of Poles and their families want to come to the Church today to join their Rosaries to that of their compatriots, one of them said it was important to him because, "The Pope was so opposed to closing borders to immigrants who do not share Polish culture". I suspect he might oppose the Pope on numerous other issues, including those mentioned in the Filial Correction. So for him and presumably other Poles the Rosary today is in part in opposition to the Pope Francis.
Brian, When you think about it, PF is simply not an orthodox catholic. It all boils down to that. From his mouth, not mine. He seems to be saying the gates of mercy are open to everyone BUT orthodox Catholics who are hypocrites, pharisees, etc. Shame on him, I loathe the man.
Maybe we interpreted St. Faustina’s “spark from Poland” saving the church prophecy prematurely? Or it has multiple fulfillments? If St. Pope JPII hadn’t ignited the faith of the Polish Church maybe they wouldn’t be so on fire to defend the faith right now. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41538260?ocid=socialflow_twitter Poland Catholics hold controversial prayer day on borders Tens of thousands prayed in numerous locations around Poland's borders Tens of thousands have taken part in a controversial prayer day in Poland. Catholics were encouraged to go to designated points along the country's borders for a mass rosary prayer for the salvation of Poland and the world. Church leaders say the event is purely religious, but there are concerns it could be seen as endorsing the state's refusal to let in Muslim migrants. The feast day marks the anniversary of a Christian victory over Ottoman Turks at the sea battle of Lepanto in 1571. People were bussed in from more than 300 churches to points all along the border. They stood in lines, some on beaches on the Baltic Sea, some in fields and some in towns. "We come to the border of Poland to pray for the Poles and for the whole world," said one woman. AFP Many people said they were praying for their Catholic faith Mateusz Maranowski Several hundred took part in the port of Gdynia "We want our Catholic faith to continue, to keep our children safe, that our brothers from other countries can understand that our faith is unwavering and that we feel safer, not only in Poland but also in the world." Mateusz Maranowski, a Polish radio journalist, said he had come out to thank the Virgin Mary for his child, who was born prematurely. He said about 300 people took part in the event in the sea port of Gdynia. "At first I wanted to pray alone on the beach but it turned out that many people from nearby parishes came out to the beach to take part in the... event," he said. 'Encompass the world' Halina Kotarska, 65, said she was expressing thanks for the survival of her son in a car crash, but also praying for the survival of Christianity in Europe. "Islam wants to destroy Europe," she said, quoted by the Associated Press. "They want to turn us away from Christianity." Some priests and Church commentators said the event could be seen as support for the government's refusal to accept Muslim migrants, a policy backed by a majority of Poles. Organisers said the prayer was not directed against anyone or anything. The border was chosen, they said, because it symbolised their desire to encompass the world with prayer. Poland, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, refused to take part in an EU deal in 2015 to relocate refugees from frontline states Italy and Greece. The Polish position has put it at odds with the Vatican, with Pope Francis urging greater acceptance of migrants on a visit to Poland last year. Bishops have urged the government to assist selected Syrian refugees but the plan has failed to secure politicians' backing.
https://stream.org/vatican-smothering-pro-life-office-with-seamless-garment/ Is the Vatican Smothering Its Pro-life Office with a Seamless Garment? LifeSiteNews has issued an alarming report on the official Vatican office that sets the tone for Catholic pro-life efforts worldwide. That’s the Pontifical Academy for Life, whose staff Pope Francis mostly purged and replaced, in some cases with pro-choice thinkers. It now seems to have embraced the “Seamless Garment” ideology of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. The pro-life group C-Fam cited a recent statement by the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life: Being pro-life requires the academy to “re-think the semantic value of the term life,” said the President of the academy, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, during a press conference on Monday. He said there were no plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (on Human Life) next year and that the academy was instead opening “new frontiers for debate,” mentioning specifically the environment, migration and arms control. The Mindless Garment We have warned about this before at The Stream. The Seamless Garment is a leftist utopian wish list with little connection to real Christian morals. Its proponents pretend that open borders, carbon divestment, and gun confiscation are all just like abortion in that: The correct Christian position on them is clear and unambiguous. The policy implications of how to act on them are obvious and unarguable. They are of all of equal moral importance. None of these statements is true. Not even close. The Seamless Garment was a handy political dodge for pro-choice liberals who wanted to keep on collecting Catholic votes. It falsifies Christian social teaching. It dissolves the rights of unborn children like a pinch of salt in an Olympic swimming pool of dubious progressive “reforms.” They share just one thing in common: more power for the government. The Seamless Garment was a handy political dodge for pro-choice liberals who wanted to keep on collecting Catholic votes. Let’s say we’re just kidding around on the abortion issue. And we really don’t care what happens to unborn children. Then that’s just fine. A nihilist friend in college once quipped, “They’re only babies.” What If Killing Babies Is Uniquely Evil? But what if we were serious? What if we really thought that killing almost a million American children a year for our sexual convenience was morally … problematic? That it was just as bad as transphobic children’s books? Maybe worse than white ladies making tacos? In that case, we wouldn’t cover up the death of the innocent with a moral fog machine. We would focus on it as seriously as the gun lobby and the pro-Israel lobby do on their (just) causes. We would act like … William Wilberforce. How Britain Became Christian Again Eric Metaxas told the story better than we can. In his powerful book Amazing Grace, he described how Wilberforce and a coalition of like-minded Christian reformers changed Britain. They confronted a thoroughly rotted social elite. A fatally compromised Christian church. “Respectable” gentlemen exploited poor women as prostitutes, and society just winked. Corrupt politicians took payoffs to give special privileges from the government to cronies in private business. Anglican priests and bishops preached not the Gospel but blasé Enlightenment platitudes. Some even seemed to be Deists, preaching that God is a bored absentee landlord. Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream » But worse than all these evils was one. It stood out above all the others. Great Britain was enriching itself through the slave trade. The organized kidnapping, beating, rape, and forced labor of millions of Africans fed the country’s lucrative colonies in the Caribbean. You know those wigged and powdered lords and ladies who nattered about “the rights of man” in glittering parlors? They paid for their costumed balls with blood money. Hundreds of thousands of Englishmen relied on income from sugar plantations in Jamaica and Barbados. Powerful members of Parliament defended the slave trade as vital to their constituents. Broad-Based Reform Yes, Wilberforce did lead a broad-based movement for the “reform of manners.” That didn’t center on etiquette. It was a cultural call for the nominal Christians of Britain to live like real Christians. To care for the poor. To be faithful to their marriages. Even to pay their workers fairly. And as Metaxas documents, that movement made a vast difference. It soon became shameful to mistreat your tenants and workers. Mass revival movements brought the Gospel to rural areas where Celtic paganism still lingered. Methodist chapels helped young men stay sober and young women stay out of the brothels. While France lurched from revolution to revolution, Britain pursued peaceful reforms. First Things First But first, Wilberforce confronted the slave trade. He knew that it was different. There were no shades of gray on the question. He lived to see not just the slave trade but slavery itself outlawed in the British empire. Britain went from being one of the main exporters of slaves from Africa, to the global police force suppressing the Arab slave trade with cannons and soldiers. How did he manage that? He wielded the pivotal virtue of prudence. Instead of grandstanding to the public and issuing utopian manifestos about all social evils, he focused his efforts on the greatest one. He separated his crusade against the slave trade from his broader Christian agenda. His campaign focused narrowly on the evils of slavery, the cruelties of plantations and the deaths in the Middle Passage from Africa. He led a boycott of sugar, which fed the slave trade’s profits. He took Englishmen on tours of former slave ships, and sponsored testimonies by ransomed slaves. Instead of grandstanding to the public and issuing utopian manifestos about all social evils, Wilberforce focused his efforts on the greatest one. He separated his crusade against the slave trade from his broader Christian agenda. His campaign focused narrowly on the evils of slavery Wilberforce was willing to compromise. He knew that it was a non-starter to demand that all the slaves in Britain’s colonies be liberated immediately. That their “owners” be stripped of incomes many counted on for their livelihoods. His movement worked doggedly to make the right political bargains to ease out slavery throughout the British Empire. In 1833, the British government spent one fifth of the nation’s wealth in payments to slave owners. That set every slave on British soil free, without a civil war such as the United States would face. If Wilberforce Had Been Seamless What if Wilberforce had believed in the Seamless Garment? What would he have done? For that, we can look to Cardinal Blaise Cupich in Cardinal Bernardin’s old Archdiocese of Chicago. He greeted the news that Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts for profit … seamlessly. He wrote a column that claimed that Planned Parenthood’s organ trafficking was no worse than cuts to Obamacare. Or “lax” gun laws. Or attempts to deport illegal immigrants. Or the execution of murderers. So if Wilberforce were Seamless, he would have buried his efforts against the slave trade in a flurry of other initiatives. He would have demanded that Britain dissolve its colonial empire, establish minimum wage laws, end child labor, grant equal rights to women and open all its borders to unlimited immigration. If any politician didn’t favor all that, he’d have refused to work with the person. Because the “anti-slavery” movement needed to address every single other issue of any possible importance. Because he wasn’t that serious about ending slavery in the first place. But, thanks be to God, Wilberforce wasn’t Seamless.
Would a genuine Catholic priest conscious of the Real Presence in the tabernacle of every Catholic Church allow a gratuitous event of this nature to occur? I do not think so. It's fairly clear now that the Catholic Church ,and not for the first time , has another anti pope to deal with.
A demoted then promoted critic is more likely to be servile. The so called Dubia is now a faded note in the bin of good intentions. Where is the oft expressed care for souls? In the meantime schism grows as the Barque of Peter flounders on the rocks steered there by heretics in high places.
He gave a homily yesterday on Christians falling into the devils of worldliness. Can you believe the cahones he has. The pope of worldliness! No repentance needed in his new church. Left=good. Right =bad. The church of George Soros. Orthodox Catholicism=bad. Left-wing worldliness=good.
He is very cunning at times. He say' s one thing that sounds good and then he contridicts it by what he says and does on the hand. He talks against worldliness, but then sucks up to the globalists, abortionists, sodomites, populationists and the Godless UN and promotes what the secularists want. Who is fooled by this?
This sounds to me like they are responding to an exact request from heaven to do this given by some saint/mystic. I do wonder who?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...-traditional-teaching-on-death-penalty-cathol Pope ‘seems to be contradicting traditional teaching’ on death penalty: Catholic prof Pete Baklinski giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com Follow Pete October 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis’ recent statements about the death penalty being “contrary to the Gospel” seem to be a departure from previous Catholic teaching, a Catholic professor says. “When Pope Francis says that capital punishment is ‘in itself contrary to the Gospel,’ and ‘inadmissible … no matter how serious the crime,’ he seems to be contradicting traditional teaching,” said Dr. Edward Feser, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in California, to LifeSiteNews. Pope Francis made his controversial remarks during an October 11 speech to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, which gathered to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II (read full speech here). Dr. Feser is an expert on the morality of capital punishment. Together with Dr. Joseph M. Bessette, who is an ethicist at Claremont McKenna College in California, he published in March a Catholic defense of capital punishment titled By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed. Dr. Edward Feser “The Church teaches that scripture is divinely inspired, that it cannot teach error where matters of faith and morals are concerned, and that it must always be interpreted in the way the Church traditionally has understood it. But many passages of scripture clearly teach that capital punishment is legitimate, and have always been interpreted by the Church as teaching this,” he said. Both the Old and New Testaments indicate that the death penalty can be legitimate. For instance, Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” Or again, St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans teaches that the state “does not bear the sword in vain (but) is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.” Feser said previous popes have “consistently” reaffirmed the legitimacy of capital punishment and have “insisted that accepting its legitimacy is a requirement of Catholic orthodoxy.” One such pope would be Pius XII, who in 1955 defended the authority of the State to punish crimes, even with the death penalty. He argued that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture because “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” “Even Pope St. John Paul II taught that capital punishment is not always and absolutely wrong,” said Feser. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his classic defense of capital punishment in the Summa Theologica, argued that “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” The Catholic professor said the Church also has “always taught that popes are obligated to preserve traditional teaching and never to contradict it.” “When Pope Francis says that capital punishment is ‘in itself contrary to the Gospel,’ and ‘inadmissible … no matter how serious the crime,’ he seems to be contradicting traditional teaching,” he said. “If that is what he is doing, then he is flirting with doctrinal error, which is possible when a pope is not speaking ex cathedra, even though it is extremely rare. There are only a handful of cases in Church history of popes who are possibly guilty of this, the best known cases being those of Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII,” he added. Feser said that if Pope Francis is reversing past teaching on capital punishment, then he is “implicitly saying that every previous pope and scripture itself were wrong.” “This would completely undermine the authority of the Church, and of Pope Francis himself. For if the Church could be that wrong for that long about something that serious, why trust anything else she says? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken, why should we think Pope Francis is right?” he said. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is morally permissible. “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense … Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor,” states the Catechism (bold added). The Catholic professor said that if what the Pope said is true that he, in the Pope’s own words, is “not in any way contradicting past teaching” and that his statements “in no way represents a change in doctrine,” then he “ought to issue a clarification, so as to ensure the credibility of the Church’s claim to preserve the deposit of faith.” The Pope said during his speech that he would like the Catechism of the Catholic Church to change, adding that only a “partial vision can think of ‘the deposit of faith’ as something static.” The “harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth,” the Pope said.
Apparently quite a few are fooled by it. Wish I could find the article I read a while ago where someone, I think it was someone who knew him in Buenos Aires, said that two people with opposing views could meet with him and each come out of the meeting believing that he agreed with them. We've seen this since the beginning of his papacy, starting with his speech about the Church not being just another NGO and then he set about turning it into just that. It's the same with marriage, abortion, same sex unions and just about any issue where the Church and the world haven't been in lockstep. The world believes he is changing church teaching (which he has no authority to do) and poor saps in the Church believe he is defending the deposit of faith when the evidence points to the contrary.
You gotta keep Joe-six-pack Catholic happy and ignorant in the pews with sweet sounding nothings, while you set about “irreversibly” changing the Church.
http://www.lmschairman.org/2017/10/...tml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&m=1 Ultramontanism's Death Sentence Pope Pius XII In 1952 Pope Pius XII said the following, in a public address recorded among his official acts: Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live. P In 2017 Pope Francis spoke, in a not dissimilar context: It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor. Again: It is necessary, therefore, to reaffirm that no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person. What can the Ultramontanists, those with an exaggerated view of papal authority so prominent in the debate over Amoris laetitia, make of this situation? Presumably, in 1952 all good Ultramontanists said that, because the Pope had said so, it follows that it is true that the death penalty is not only permissible, but for sufficiently serious crimes, uniquely appropriate. (What else does it mean, to say that a criminal has 'disposed' of his 'right to life'?) Today, in 2017, all good Ultramontanists are saying that, because the Pope has said so, it follows that it is false that the the death penalty is ever permissible. Now, the official Ultramontanist line is that Papal authority, being supreme and (for practical purposes, always) infallible, can never be self contradictory. But between these two papal statements there is a contradiction as plain as the nose on your face. The suggestion that the 2017 statement is a 'development' or 'clarification' of what was said in 1952, or that is draws out implications of this and other expressions of the Church's teaching on capital punishment over the centuries, is not something one needs to haggle over. It is simply insane. But for those who wish to haggle, a simple test of the development of doctrine is to ask if later authors can continue to accept earlier expressions of a doctrine as being true. Thus, we find the discussion of grace in Augustine lacking some distinctions developed by later authors and used in dogmatic statements, but Augustine is not for that reason wrong, and what he writes is not, with hindsight, heresy. It might on occasion be misleading to quote Augustine on grace, but one need not disavow him. In this case, by contrast, it is evident that Pope Francis disagrees with Pope Pius XII: they can't both be right. Today's Ultramontanists are in a bind, therefore. In order to uphold the supreme and (for practical purposes, always) infallible authority of Pope Francis, they are going to have to admit that the authority of Pope Pius XII was not so supreme or infallible after all. But if people would have been wrong in 1952 to throw themselves on their faces before Pius XII and agree with what he said about capital punishment, just because he'd said it, then the hideous possibility must exist that people may be wrong to agree with everything that Pope Francis says in 2017, just because he's said it. Pope Francis' statement, by so simply and so clearly contradicting his predecessor of 65 years ago, demonstrates the falsity of Ultramontanism in a way I would never have thought possible. We may point out to the Ultramontanists that the contradiction of one Pope by another on a matter of faith and morals is possible, given the fallibility of most of their pronouncements, even when they are giving every appearance of exercising their teaching office (let alone when they are talking off the cuff on aeroplanes, or writing private letters), but usually Popes are far too careful in preparing their public remarks to allow this to happen, except in the most subtle and tacit way. But Pope Francis has done it. The game is up. Ultramontanism as a practical guide for Catholics only works, insofar as it can work at all, in times of great stability. At times like the present, it is self-contradictory and absurd. After Pope Francis' statement on the death penalty, no Catholic with intellectual integrity can continue to hold it. Where does this leave the ordinary Catholic? The ordinary Catholic is obliged to believe what the Church teaches. The Church hands on faithfully what she has received from her Lord. We can see Pope Pius XII doing that in the quoted passage: using the language of his time, certainly, but in its content faithful to the Popes, the Fathers and Doctors, and Scripture (see Gen. 9:6; Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13; Deut. 21:22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28). Of Pope Francis' statement, to put it mildly, this cannot be said. Note: the liceity of capital punishment is the first of the propositions discussed in the Appeal to Cardinals of the 45 Theologians, which gives more references. Cardinal Dulles gives a thorough account of the teaching of the Church on First Things here. Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
Pope announces Synod of Bishops for Pan-Amazon region https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/10/15/pope-announces-synod-bishops-pan-amazon-region/ I believe that this synod will allow the ordination of married men who will carry the Eucharist in places of difficult access, such as the Amazon [translated by google translate]
