The Vatican Has Fallen

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    Peaceable Living

    St. Paul did say to live peaceably with all men if you could. He also said rather often in his letters that you cannot live peaceably with people who get the words wrong and try to teach the wrong words to others (see Gal. 1:8-9, for example). "Peace" does not mean surrender, and it does not mean silence. If it had, Paul would have died at home in his bed. He would have been spared the trouble of writing all those letters to all those troublesome churches, and liberals from his day to this would like him a lot more.

    The Fathers I have quoted wanted to live peaceably with all men. We should not think that attacking error was the thing they liked most to do. One suspects when reading them that they really didn't want to write books such as St. Irenaeus's Against Heresies -- a long and careful treatment of the bewildering flock of Gnostic heresies -- but knew they had to. They loved the Lord Jesus and loved to tell others about Him. That is what they wanted to do. Fighting those who told others the wrong things about Him is what they were forced to do.

    The early Christians did not seem to have a place for what we would call "honest mistakes" or "legitimate differences of opinion" in teaching about Christ. They saw that those in error were really in danger because they were cutting themselves off from God. They would not try to jolly them along, or invite them to stay till they saw the light, if they ever did. No, they were rebuked and banished. The early Christians told them they were wrong, and they often told them just who it was that error served.

    But that is not all they did. They would try to bring those who got it wrong to repentance, not only through warning but through kindness, mostly the kindness of praying for them.

    Even when telling the people of Smyrna not even to meet with false teachers, whom he called "beasts in the shape of men," St. Ignatius of Antioch also told them "you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this."

    "Let us likewise deal kindly, let us persuade our adversaries of that which is to their profit," said St. Ambrose of Milan, writing against the Arian heretics. "For we would not overthrow, but rather heal. We lay no ambush for them, but warn them as in duty bound. Kindliness often bends those whom neither force nor argument will avail to overcome." He did, however, a few paragraphs later say that "if our adversaries cannot be turned by kindness, let us summon them before the Judge," meaning the Lord, and he knew the Lord would convict them.

    A Caution

    Although the Fathers knew how important it is to get the words exactly right, they also knew that the Church and her witness suffered whenever Christians fought. Speaking of the doctrinal battles of his day, St. Basil said that "now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack, and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth."

    The need to say the right words will tempt many of us to feel good about ourselves for saying hard and cruel words. "The saddest thing about it all," St. Basil continued,

    is that the sound part is divided against itself, and the troubles we are suffering are like those which once befell Jerusalem when Vespasian was besieging it. The Jews of that time were at once beset by foes without and consumed by the internal sedition of their own people. In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox.

    When Christians argued about the Faith, they hurt the appeal of the Faith to those outside the Church and weakened the confidence of those inside. "All the while unbelievers laugh, men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain," Basil said. When Christians fought, the people who didn't believe wouldn't come closer; the Christians who had trouble believing were tempted to stop; and even those who did firmly believe felt as if the foundation might fail.

    But all this said, Basil insisted that the cause of the problem was not the fact that Christians disagreed and insisted on their own teaching -- refused to accept diversity, as a modern Christian might put it. The problem was that some who claimed to be Christians taught lies. "Souls are drenched in ignorance," he said, "because adulterators of the word imitate the truth." Though they understood the cost of conflict, the early Christians had no choice but to fight the adulterators of the word.

    Fighting over words is a dangerous thing to do when they are words about God. But the early Christians fought nevertheless, because when people get the words wrong, unbelievers are given an excuse to scoff at Christ and not face Him, men who hold to the Faith but not with confidence begin to lose their hold, and people for whom Christ died simply do not know who He is.

    They were willing to fight when they had to, but they wanted peace. "One should adjust one's degrees of flexibility and rigidity so as not to give way to all and sundry simply through cowardice, nor to cut oneself off from others by being foolhardy," wrote St. Gregory of Nazianzus. As members of the same body, "it is better and of more use to adapt ourselves to one another, than to begin by condemning one another, then breaking off from one another, then destroying our confidence in one another by living in separation."

    But though they wanted peace, it had to be the peace of unity in the truth. "Let no one be under the impression that I am saying that we must always look for peace," Gregory continued. "Just as it is sometimes better to have disagreement, so on occasions, agreement can be worse than discord."

    They loved the real Jesus. They knew who He was. They wanted other people to know and love Him too. But some effective preachers were lying about Jesus and inducing vulnerable people to follow a Jesus who didn't exist and couldn't save them. To agree with these people was worse, much worse, than discord.

    The Fathers' example is a dangerous one to follow for those of us in whom the mind of Christ is not nearly as well formed, and who have not reached nearly so great a holiness as they. Nevertheless, their example is a dangerous one to refuse. People are still drawing bad pictures of Jesus, and people are still following them. If you have been blessed to see the real picture, you may be the one called to denounce the bad ones.
     
  2. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria

    Praetorian, Thank you.

    Honestly, I was surprised to see that there could be a similar situation in the past to the situation of Pope Francis in regards to the confusion created by chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. I hadn't realized that this was discussed, in part, on MOG already but I remembered a lot of discussion about how this case with the Pope is "a first". I do realize that it is all very difficult to fully understand and now I wonder if the comparison that I pointed out could be viewed as a sort of threat by some - I did not mean for my comments to be taken that way.

    I think that some comparisons can be made between a Pope and a President or PM, etc. but the Church of course is very different from a country. Most people in high places are concerned with the legacy that they leave behind, I would think that the Pope has given some thought to this also. Most leaders would say that people will understand some of the decisions that they have made better in the future, sometimes the legacy is viewed upon with favor and other times it is not, some times the opinion varies.

    My prayer is that the Pope continues to pray for clarity on this matter and that he is not afraid to admit that he may have made a mistake. As you stated on another thread, it is looked at as "just one footnote" by some people. I think that it is possible that this footnote could be corrected/clarified relatively easily by the Pope but if it is not the implications to the Pope'e legacy and to the Church's future could be very grave, like an infection that continues to spread if it is not treated.

    http://motheofgod.com/threads/cardi...-amoris-clarification.9912/page-2#post-191407
     
    HeavenlyHosts likes this.
  3. picadillo

    picadillo Guest


    ...not to mention his soul...
     
    HeavenlyHosts likes this.
  4. AED

    AED Powers

    Wow! Time to rethink mildness I guess. The picture of St John fleeing the scene denouncing a heretic is pretty convincing. I have always loved St Polycarp. I rather like the idea of these great saints calling out the errors and heresies of their time. And the author makes a good point about Jesus forcefully standing up to the scribes and Pharisees and calling them out. If only the Holy Spirit would fill me with such fortitude.
     
  5. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    onepeterfive.com
    Is the Defeat of Cardinal Cupich a Sign of Things to Come?
    [​IMG] Steve Skojec November 15, 2017
    Yesterday, something very unexpected happened.

    In their Fall General Assembly for 2017, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) held votes on several items, among them, the chairmanship for their pro-life committee. Faced with a choice between a bishop with a pro-life track record and a reliably progressive cardinal who has made serious compromises on life and doctrinal issues, the bishops — expected by many to follow “tradition” and vote for the man of higher ecclesiastical rank — broke with protocol and chose the pro-life candidate instead.

    Two Very Different Candidates

    The first of the two candidates presented for the position was Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas. Naumann has been described as a “conservative” prelate who proved his pro-life bona fides 2008 when he refused Communion to then-Governor Kethleen Sebelius because of her support of abortion. Earlier this year, he made another unpopular stand for life when he issued a pastoral encyclical that initiated the cutting of diocesan ties with the Girl Scouts of America as a result of their promotion of transgenderism and abortion. “It is essential,” he said, “that all youth programs at our parishes affirm virtues and values consistent with our Catholic faith.” The Girl Scouts, Naumann explained, “are no longer a compatible partner in helping us form young women with the virtues and values of the Gospel.” He went on to say that the time had come for Christians to recognize that to “follow Jesus and his Gospel will often require us to be counter-cultural.”

    The second candidate for the pro-life chairmanship was Cardinal Blase Cupich, a progressive small-town bishop who had languished in dioceses like Rapid City, South Dakota and Spokane, Washington until he was fast-tracked up the ecclesiastical ladder by Pope Francis when he was appointed Archbishop of Chicago — America’s third-largest Catholic archdiocese — in 2014. His appointment came after the pope accepted the mandatory resignation of his predecessor, Cardinal Francis George, who died five months later after a lengthy battle with cancer, and was rumored to have been less-than-thrilled with the choice of his successor. Cupich was elevated to cardinal the following year, in 2016. Unlike Nuamann, Cupich earned a reputation for compromise on matters of importance in the Catholic faith in general, and on life issues in particular. Some well-known examples:

    • While bishop of Rapid City, he physically locked members of the Latin Mass community out of their chapel during the Easter Triduum, euphemistically describing his coercive measure as “an opportunity on an annual basis for us to all worship together, for one moment of unity as a Catholic church,” and accusing them of finding it “so difficult, on the day of the Lord’s death, to celebrate with their bishop, who is the sign of the Lord’s unity”.
    • While bishop of Spokane, he was reported to have discouraged priests from being involved in protesting abortion clinics with the 40 Days for Life campaign, allegedly not wanting them associated with pro-life “extremists”.
    • In November of 2014, just weeks after his installment as Archbishop of Chicago, Cupich said he would not enforce Canon 915, and would give Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
    • In May, 2015, he was seen cozying up with pro-abortion “Catholic” Senator Dick Durbin in order to promote “immigration reform.” That same month, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg wrote, after a conversation with Cupich on the topic, said that despite his official lack of support for legalizing same-sex marriage, “To me, everything the archbishop said, except for his conclusions, is an argument for gay marriage.”
    • In August, 2015, Cupich bizarrely morally equated the evil of abortion to other issues of Social Justice like a “broken immigration system” and “racism”.
    • In October, 2015, at the conclusion of the second synod on the family, Cupich said at a Vatican press conference that conscience is “inviolable”. “He believes,” reported John-Henry Westen and Pete Baklinski of LifeSiteNews, “that divorced and remarried couples could be permitted to receive the sacraments, if they have ‘come to a decision’ to do so ‘in good conscience’” – theological reasoning that he indicated in response to a follow-up question would also apply to gay couples.”
    The Right People Are Unhappy

    In an article for the Wall Street Journal about the unusual vote, Ian Lovett and Francis X. Rocca said that Naumann’s victory signaled “resistance to Pope Francis’s vision for the church among the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S.” The vote, they said, “breaks a longstanding tradition of the position being held by a cardinal—an unusual lapse of deference in a highly rank-conscious body—and suggests that Catholic leaders in the U.S. remain largely resistant to the changes Pope Francis is trying to bring to the church.”

    Lovett and Rocca say that Cupich had planned to expand the pro-life committee’s purview “to include other issues like the death penalty, health care and poverty—a list more in line with the priorities Pope Francis advocated for.”

    At the National Catholic Reporter, the ever-histrionic Michael Sean Winters took the matter further, stating that electing Naumann over Cupich “amounted to the bishops giving the middle finger to Pope Francis.”

    “Underneath the issue of how to approach pro-life issues,” Winters writes, lay a deeper question: “How do the bishops feel about Pope Francis?”

    He continues:

    Cupich was plucked out of the relatively small diocese of Spokane by Francis and sent to Chicago, his first major appointment in the U.S. hierarchy. Francis also named Cupich to the Congregation for Bishops which vets candidates for the episcopacy and, consequently, is charged with shaping the next generation of leaders in the church.

    Winters said that he did not see any other choice before the voting bishops as “stark” as the decision between Cupich and Naumann.

    Massimo Faggioli, a papal advocate and professor of theology at Villanova University who has become increasingly outspoken against orthodox critics of the papacy in recent months, tweeted after the vote that “The US bishops have obviously the right to elect whomever they want as head of committees. But it is clear since 2013 that a majority of them sees the message of Francis’ pontificate, esp. on life and marriage, as not adequate for the Catholic Church in the USA.”
     
    Don_D likes this.
  6. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    Con't


    Bellwether or Blip?


    As much as I want to believe that Faggioli is correct — that a majority of the US bishops see Francis’ message as inadequate — I’m not ready to pop open any champagne. It’s going to take more than one vote to demonstrate that this is the beginning of a trend.

    Still, talk of growing dissatisfaction with this pope — buyer’s remorse, as it were — has been fairly consistent from early on, and continues to grow. Not long into the Francis papacy, anonymous sources began hinting at the discontent of a number of cardinals — even those who helped elect him — with his style of governance. Around the time he dressed down the curia during his 2014 Christmas address, I recall having seen him referred to as a “Latin American dictator” — a term Catholic journalist and blogger Damian Thompson of The Spectator headlined with earlier this year. One source I spoke to during the early days of the papacy who had spent time at the Holy See said that there was a general feeling of dislike toward the pope from the people who worked for the Vatican, simply because he was a scold, and treats his subordinates poorly. Priests around the world have expressed their weariness, both publicly and privately, of constantly being insulted by their shepherd in chief as he paints them as petty, vain, hard-hearted, or unconcerned. Earlier this year, a story in the London Times alleged that a group of the cardinals who worked to elect Francis have become so concerned with the damage he is doing that they want him to resign, to be replaced by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin. (Parolin, by the way, has recently raised his public profile and diplomatic outreach significantly, in a way that looks a lot like campaigning.) Still, a source quoted at the time made clear that disenchantment is a far cry from pending action:

    A good number of the majority that voted for Bergoglio in 2013 have come to regret their decision, but I don’t think it’s plausible that members of the hierarchy will pressure the Pope to resign. Those who know him know it would be useless. [He] has a very authoritarian streak. He won’t resign until he has completed his revolutionary reforms, which are causing enormous harm.

    Nevertheless, any shift in the prevailing wind would be welcome. Cardinal Cupich was viewed by at least one member of the clergy I spoke with as a likely instigator behind the forced resignation of Fr. Thomas Weinandy from his doctrinal post at the USCCB following his letter criticizing the pope. Weinandy had held the position for some time. It’s entirely possible that for many of the more conservative bishops who have quietly been growing more concerned, such a naked display of intolerance towards a legitimate expression of conscience from one of their own trusted advisers — especially after that adviser made note of the silencing of critical voices as one of the chief problems under this pontificate — was a bridge too far.

    Time will tell if this is just a blip on the radar, or the beginning of something bigger.

    [​IMG]
     
    Don_D, AED, DeGaulle and 1 other person like this.
  7. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    We are all called to do different things AED. If you aren't made to walk up to someone and call them the "firstborn of satan", then I wouldn't bother trying. I can't envision Our Lady doing that in her life. ;)

    Most of the great saints who made these kinds of statements were Apostles and Bishops and Priests with all of the teaching authority that goes along with those ranks. Clergy have a real teaching authority that we as laity do not. That is my take on it. Perhaps I am wrong. I don't claim to be any sort of great authority. I think sometimes we do need to keep an eye on our tongues though as we will be judged on every idle word.

    We should also not get too upset if others do not act in the same manner as ourselves and we should not try to force them to. God made us each with our own gifts. He did not make a bunch of clones. Our manner of fighting error should compliment each other. Some of us are prayer warriors. Some of us man the trumpet and call others to battle. An army has a whole host of different people in it doing different jobs. In actual statistics, for every man with a rifle there are ten supporting him doing other jobs. I think it is the same in the Church Militant.

    Let us all walk together in lockstep to face the enemy and use our talents to compliment each other.
     
    Light, AED, DeGaulle and 5 others like this.
  8. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    I think what is happening right now has similarities to what happened with Pope Honorius and also with the Arian crisis, but it seems to be dwarfing those more and more with each passing day. I think it is evident to anyone with eyes to see that what is happening right now is truly of a magnitude the Church has never faced before. If this is not the Great Apostasy predicted in the Bible then it is a forerunner type of it.

    In the Arian crisis something like 90-95% of all of the Bishops in the Church were heretics, but the Church was saved because the laity were solid in their faith. Today we have many wayward Bishops, many timid Bishops and a small smattering of Bishops who are both faithful to the Church teachings and vocal. To add fuel to the fire the laity do not even know their faith anymore and can be led to destruction fairly easily. There are one billion "Catholics" in the world. I would bet roughly less than 5-10% of those are faithful to all of the precepts of the Church. That would make the Remnant Church somewhere about 1% or less of the total world population. Very sad indeed.
     
    AED, DeGaulle and sunburst like this.
  9. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    I've been pondering on all of the above.
    I am not as articulate as so many of you are, and spend a lot of time thinking of the words to write when making my responses here.
    I feel very strongly that these are the times we have been warned about by Mother Mary in so many of her apparitions (Quito, LaSalette, Fatima, Akita, Tre Fontane, etc) and also by so many saints.
    In one sentence: "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."
    To me it is quite plain to see that Satan himself is ruling in the Catholic Church now. Satan deserves no deference from us. I do not feel afraid when I show no respect to authority when the authority is evil.
    I also do not believe that PF is innocently being misled by those around him. His many words and actions tell me otherwise. He is a cunning man.

    I don't have the answer as to what we can and should do. I do not feel called to write a letter to the pope. Maybe it is for someone else on this MOG forum to do. Someone way more holy and articulate than me. Maybe there are already people on this forum who have been hearing from the Mother of God herself and know what he/she/we should do, but feel uncertain because we are always being reminded that we have to respect the pope.

    But at the very least, we should be aware that it is not we who are in the wrong when we are trying our very best to condemn the evil that is coming out from the Vatican. We are not the ones fomenting schism. We are holding on to and defending the Truth. Standing up for Christ.
    I also believe in prayer - the rosary, 5 first Saturdays, daily mass, confession - and the wearing of the Miraculous Medal and the Brown Scapular.

    I believe that evil began to be openly unleashed within the Catholic Church at the time of Pope John XXIII. The 3rd secret of Fatima was truly meant to be released at the time of his pontificate, but he denied it. With his election, Freemasonry took control of the Catholic Church. Freemasonry was no longer (openly or not) condemned. Vatican II brought such terrible changes that obviously weakened our Catholic Church and our Faith. Protestants were allowed to have a say in what the new mass should be like.
    Less reverence at mass and loss of the beautiful music . The focus turned to the priest and people instead of being on God.
    Abuses of the Holy Eucharist. Unconsecrated hands touching the Holy Eucharist.
    Ecumenism and suppression of the belief that salvation is only through the Catholic Church.
    Etc., etc...

    Pope Benedict XVI was obviously enlightened when he issued Summorum Pontificum. But what did PF say not too long ago? He criticized the "rigidity" of young people who are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass.
    "I always try to understand what's behind people who are too young to have experienced the pre-conciliar liturgy and yet still they want it," the pontiff said. "Sometimes I found myself confronted with a very strict person, with an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."

    Also recall what happened after Cardinal Sarah's call for mass ad orientem. A swift strike-down.

    There are so many more things to talk about, but we have been through many of them on this forum.
    I thank God and Mother Mary for this little haven. God Bless all here.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2017
    Light, Don_D, AED and 3 others like this.
  10. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    SG you are a treasure...
    I agree with you on just about everything you believe except for the authority issue with the Pope, but I won't go into that again because we both know where the other stands on it. I wish I had better answers for you. I guess all I can say is cleave to Our Lady (I know you are) and she will guide us through this.
     
  11. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Thank you BrianK, for this article.
    It really resonates with me.
     
    AED and BrianK like this.
  12. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Thank you Praetorian, for such kindness.
    I know we are on the same side of this fight.

    St Michael the Archangel, pray and fight for us.
     
    Don_D, AED, Praetorian and 1 other person like this.
  13. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Yes, let's do that.
     
    Don_D, AED, Praetorian and 1 other person like this.
  14. If nothing else it gives crazy people ideas:

    ISIS Promises ‘Christmas Blood’ At The Vatican…

    The terror group ISIS has made a chilling threat against the Vatican just weeks before tens of thousands of faithful gather there to celebrate Christmas.

    A pro-ISIS propaganda channel made the threat in a poster depicting a car attack.

    The poster – reading “Christmas blood” – depicts a masked jihadi driving a BMW towards St Peter’s Basilica, where Pope Francis holds mass.

    An assault rifle and a rucksack are visible on the seat next to the driver, who is using a sat nav and driving at high speed.

    https://www.weaselzippers.us/364261-isis-promises-christmas-blood-at-the-vatican/
     
  15. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2017/11/cardinal-sarah-stands-firm-against-pope.html

    Cardinal Sarah stands firm against the Pope
    Cardinal Sarah does not respond to the Pope's request



    No denial in sight

    [​IMG]


    It has never happened before. Francis had publicly corrected the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. In a letter to him the Pope contradicts him and demands a reply. But he is silent.



    In a theological debate initiated by him Curial Cardinal Robert Sarah has not responded to a request by Pope Francis for a denial so far. It deals with the question of who has the last word in liturgical translations in the respective national language. According to research by the Catholic News Agency (KNA), Sarah by Tuesday apparently did not respond to a request from the Pope to publicize his response to statements by the Cardinal on the Internet. The cardinal from Guinea leads the Congregation for Divine Worship in the Vatican.



    Canon 838 of the canon law specified



    Francis had specified in his decree "Magnum Principium" Canon 838 of the canon law. For the translation of liturgical texts, therefore, it is above all the national episcopal conferences that are responsible. They should only confirm these with Rome. So if there is there a concern about the change, no alternative translations should be written.



    Sarah, however, sees the final decision still with Congregation for Divine Worship. At least that is the result of a post that Sarah let be published on the French Internet portal, L'Homme Nouveau. Several other portals took over this text or quoted excerpts from it.



    Letter to the Cardinal

    Francis then addressed a letter to the Cardinal questioning Sarah's authorship, but at the same time urging him to promote the dissemination of "this, my answer" on the relevant websites, as well as to all episcopal conferences and members and advisers of his Dicastery".



    As confirmed by L'Homme Nouveau editor-in-chief, Philippe Maxence on request, the text was written by Sarah himself. So far, the Cardinal has also made no denial. Also, no request was made to the editors to publish a reply from the Pope. "If I had received something like that, then I would have published it," says Maxence. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has not yet commented.



    Source
     
    sunburst, Don_D, AED and 2 others like this.
  16. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8073/0/m-ller-insists-vatican-must-have-last-word-on-translations

    Müller insists Vatican must have last word on translations
    Headlines > Müller insists Vatican must have last word on translations
    14 November 2017 | by Christa Pongratz-Lippitt
    'The final authority in case of doubt cannot lie with the bishops’ conferences'
    [​IMG]
    Local bishops’ conferences could not possibly have the last word on the translation of liturgical texts as that would destroy church unity, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Gerhard Müller, told the German daily 'Passauer Neue Presseon' on 9 November.

    Questioned about the Pope’s motu proprio Magnum Principium that gave much more authority over liturgical translation to local bishops’ conferences rather than Rome, Muller said: “The final authority in case of doubt cannot lie with the bishops’ conferences. That would destroy the Catholic Church’s unity in faith, in confession and in prayer”.

    Rome had often experienced that local bishops’ conferences had used translators who had “watered down” Biblical and liturgical texts “under the pretext of making them easier to understand”, which had meant that highly-demanding doctrines such as Christ’s atoning death on the Cross, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ bodily Resurrection and the Real Presence in the bread and the wine at the Eucharist among others, had sometimes been “rationalised away or broken down into ethical appeals, thus stripping them of the reality of Catholic Salvation”, Muller explained.

    According to the Pope’s motu proprio, issued in September, the Holy See must still provide the “confirmatio” - confirmation - of translations produced by bishops' conferences.

    “It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church,” the new clause to Canon Law states.

    “It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.”

    Müller’s interviewer recalled that Pope Francis had only recently corrected Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who shared Müller’s view that Rome must have the final word on liturgical translations. As emeritus Pope Benedict had said that the liturgy was in good hands with Cardinal Sarah did this mean that the harmony between Francis and Benedict was over, Müller was asked.

    “Asking me to comment publicly on the relationship between the Pope and Benedict XVI exceeds my competences”, the cardinal replied.

    Asked if such conflicts could lead to a schism, Müller said: “Church unity is not achieved by one camp eliminating the other but the dissolution of all camps.”

    In the same interview, Müller again firmly defended Pope Francis against the accusations of propagating heresy made against him recently. It was “quite clear” and “without any doubt” that nothing in “the few controversial passages” in Amoris Laetitia was heretical, he emphasised. The Pope wanted to help people in very difficult and often tragic situations to be reconciled with God and eventually receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist, Muller said.

    PICTURE: Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller pictured in the Cathedral in Mainz, Germany ©PA
     
  17. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Line...Sand
     
    Booklady, sunburst, AED and 2 others like this.
  18. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    Yep. And Cardinal Muller seems to be joining him in this.
     
    sunburst, Praetorian, AED and 2 others like this.
  19. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Everyone has a limit to how far they will be pushed. How much they will put up with...

    I think we are fast approaching the time when those Cardinals and Bishops who are loyal to the teachings of Christ will say "So far and no farther."
     
    Don_D and AED like this.
  20. Dolours

    Dolours Guest

    Oh, David, this is a matter of faith. The Blessed Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. It is the source and summit of my faith. Anything, the least word or deed, which diminishes the Blessed Eucharist is an attack on the faith. WE - you and and I - are called to defend that faith even unto death. If you and I, at the risk of our immortal souls, are obliged to defend the faith, isn't the Vicar of Christ under the same obligation? Transubstantiation is not an optional, take it or leave it, belief for Catholics. Not for you, not for me, not for priests, bishops and most certainly not for the Pope. Failure to speak out against heresy is assent to heresy.

    The attached article describes what you, in your staunch papolatry, are assenting to and what you and your ilk would eventually have forced on the rest of us: https://veritas-vincit-internationa...cumenical-mass-promoted-by-turin-archdiocese/

    That was in Turin, the reputed centre of Freemasonry in Italy, but it is spreading, no doubt soon enough to your parish and mine. Pope Francis wasn't being merciful when he publicly humiliated Cardinal Sarah. He was being true to his cunning self. Our charge to love all people means wanting their eternal salvation. It doesn't mean making them feel all fuzzy wuzzy or condoning their errors. It doesn't mean silence in the face of error or attacks on the faith whether they be subtle or overt.

    What is happening, David, is an attack on the source and summit of our faith. The time to take sides is imminent. Which side will you be on? The "Ecumenical Mass" side or the Catholic side? Is your loyalty to a man who connived his way into St. Peter's chair stronger than your loyalty to Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist where he comes to us, body, blood, soul and divinity by means of Transubstantiation?

    It's telling that Pope Francis is uncomfortable around faithful Catholics. That a child with joined hands unsettled him and that he is at odds with truly holy people like Cardinals Sarah and Zen who have already suffered for the faith. Telling that a man who chose an atheist journalist to convey to the world his plans for open Communion would give the atheist Chinese government a say in the choice of Catholic Bishops. Heaven is weeping at this betrayal of the Church Triumphant by the Chuch not-so-Militant.

    It will, indeed, be a tiny remnant Church that survives this papacy. The church in tune with the world can have the grand edifices and the favour of the popular press. I will choose the Faith received from Jesus and his Apostles.
     
    Light, Totus tuus, sunburst and 10 others like this.

Share This Page