We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence. St. Catherine of Siena If one is not yet convinced that Bergoglio is a usurper, and not a pope to whom deference is owed, especially given this latest demonic document he has signed off on, we don’t have much common ground for discussion.
I've also been pondering this. The lightning strike on the Vatican when Pope Benedict XVI resigned ushered in the papacy of Pope Francis. Perhaps the recent lightning strike on Francis' birthday mean his papacy will end soon.
That first sentence is not part of the true quote. The rest is, and it is from a private letter of St. Catherine to an unidentified "great prelate," most likely a Cardinal. It is widely circulated these days with the added first line and with no understanding of the context whatsoever. In The Dialogue, Jesus tells St. Catherine that no matter how badly a prelate is behaving, she must always act with the utmost reverence toward them. 'For this reason no one has excuse to say, “I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sins of evil pastors.” Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness…. It is me they assault, just as it was me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me…. By not paying me reverence in the persons of my ministers, they have lost respect for the latter and persecuted them because of the many sins and faults they saw in them. If in truth the reverence they had for them had been for my sake, they would not have cut it off on account of any sin in them. For no sin can lessen the power of this sacrament, and therefore their reverence should not lessen either. When it does, it is against me they sin." (116) St. Catherine lived in a terrible time of the Church, with no doubt all kinds of things she wished prelates were not saying and doing. But when she asked Jesus to reveal to her the hearts of these prelates, she did so with the greatest of reverence and love, in order to do what it took to save their souls. Her attitude was a far cry from what people try to use her misunderstood quote to justify. And we can't just say Pope Francis isn't the pope, so therefore we don't have to do what Christ said. We don't have the authority to know and say that without the shadow of a doubt. I think we should err on the side of love and respect like St. Catherine of Siena, exhorting our pastors to speak and teach truth, and living the truth ourselves...but leaving out derision, condemnation, and the constant hammering of the pope. God bless the great bishops and Cardinals that have already spoken up with the truth against this latest document without slamming its authors and denouncing the pope. We can look to their example.
With regard to the abuse of authority, this also may come about in two ways. First, when what is ordered by an authority is opposed to the object for which that authority was constituted (if, for example, some sinful action is commanded or one which is contrary to virtue, when it is precisely for the protection and fostering of virtue that authority is instituted). In such a case, not only is there no obligation to obey the authority, but one is obliged to disobey it, as did the holy martyrs who suffered death rather than obey the impious commands of tyrants. Secondly, when those who bear such authority command things which exceed the competence of such authority; as, for example, when a master demands payment from a servant which the latter is not bound to make, and other similar cases. In this instance the subject is free to obey or disobey. St Thomas Aquinas
Over 1,000 prelates? Wow, this is amazing. I am blown away. Do you remember where you have heard this from?
I fully understand what you’re saying. Maybe it’s the fundamental difference between a woman’s response to this situation, and that of a militant (in the proper, Church sense) man, but I’m sorry, I can no longer err on the side of believing Bergoglio is a valid pope.
I don't have all the answers. I appreciate your side as well..your desire to stand up and fight against what you know is wrong.
None of us do, we just have to always keep in mind that what God calls us to personally, He may legitimately call others to the seeming opposite in this current situation. I don’t belittle anyone who feels called to a “little way” of meek and humble prayer and fasting. On the other hand, our current situation is unlike ANY OTHER in the history of Christ’s Church, so some are going to be called to fight, hard, unflinchingly, and calling a spade a spade. The latter may seem scandalous to some, even an “attack on a pope,” but that’s not what it is. Souls are in danger of eternal damnation - LITERALLY - because of Bergoglio, and some of us are righteously incensed over this. Even traditional Catholics are now saying, “We need to reexamine the Church’s teachings about the papacy” in light of this heretical, evil pope. NO!!! All those teachings still apply! It’s not those teachings that have to be ousted, it’s the guy we’re mistakenly calling pope, who is truly a usurper, that must be ousted.
Yes. The illumination of conscience will achieve that. On that great and terrible day, pope or plebeian, we will all see what we didn't before.
PurpleFlower, there is a fundamental difference between these two categories of sins: 1. Normal sins like sins against charity toward the neighbor or breaking one of the Ten Commandments. 2. Sins of "defection from the Faith," which are heresy, apostasy and schism. St. Catherine is referring to the former, normal sins in the Dialogue. Catholics who criticize a prelate or priest because he is not perfect in avoiding all normal sins is not fair and throws out the baby with the bathwater. Our prelates and priests are human, and they will commit sins. We are counseled to pray for them, not run them into the ground. On the other hand, a priest or prelate who commits the manifest and obstinate sin of heresy, apostasy or schism is automatically "outside the Church." They are, at that point, no longer a Catholic prelate or priest, and we are to avoid them until they repent of their errors and rejoin the true Faith. Jorge Bergoglio (who by the way was not even lawfully elected Pope) is a manifest and obstinate heretic. Catholics do not owe him obedience anymore that we owe obedience to the Dalai Lama or Joel Osteen. The man is not Catholic according to the standard of traditional Magisterium and the faith handed down by Jesus and the Apostles. He is not just a normal sinner. He has voluntarily left the true Faith. How can all of this be explained? We are in the End Times. This situation of a "destroyer" Pope "not canonically elected" was prophesied by St. Francis in the 1200s. St. Paul's 2 Thessalonians 2 describes the "man of sin" who will "sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God." These prophecies and others are talking about Jorge Bergoglio. Please try to connect these dots and realize that were are not in normal times. May God bless you and your family in the New Year.
Hey PF, I think your instincts are good regarding avoiding conceiving children. However it is not just recent Popes that recognized the possibility of "just causes" for delaying pregnancy. Rome first took on the question in 1853 and affirmed that periodic abstinence to avoid the probability of pregnancy FOR JUST CAUSES is morally justifiable. Pope Pius XII affirmed this in the 1950s. Of course impeding procreation through contraception is immoral. The problem arises when the reason for avoiding pregnancy is not a just or serious one..."we can't afford it" when the couple makes more than 90% of the world's population. Consider our situation 20 years ago. We were open to having children whenever God wanted us to have more (we had 3 before this). My wife developed a serious medical condition which required powerful drugs to treat. Drugs that would have caused serious damage or death to an unborn child. We abstained for the duration of her treatment. Do you think it would have been morally correct to become pregnant at that time knowing the child would likely suffer terrible pain and permanent disability? I believe we made the morally correct choice by abstaining. And of course we would welcome any disabled child into our family if we would not have abstained. We later had more children. Not all abstinence in marriage is bad...Mary and Joseph come to mind. Just something to consider. I also agree that it is our duty to pray for the Pope...
The reverence due to priests is by virtue of their representation of Christ and their consecrated hands which bring us the sacraments. That's what Christ told St. Catherine. Being in error and leading people astray, even if through malice, does not erase the indelible mark on a priest's soul. We still must try our very best to only state the errors when needed, but leave the judging of the prelate up to God.
No that sounds perfectly good and moral. Mutually agreed upon abstinence for a period due to a very serious reason is not what I'm referring to. In NFP, couples are taught a very specific process by which they can pinpoint ovulation and therefore very specifically have relations all the way up to that window and just after. Sure, there is no physical barrier preventing life, but when the instructor is waxing eloquent about how it's 99% accurate in preventing a child, even more accurate than birth control, and you can still have relations most of the month, but it's such an amazing sacrifice to have to abstain together for a few days...it seems to me that the contraception is still present, but in the heart. If you're truly trying to prevent harm to a baby because of a dangerous medicine, you're probably abstaining entirely, not doing the modern notion of NFP. But my point earlier was that though this is something I disagree with the Church permitting (NFP as it is taught these days), my reaction is to just not do it myself. I'm not up in arms about it, though I will explain my belief about it if asked.
Ok so you will grant that there are some morally acceptable reasons for periodic abstaining. So there would be nothing intrinsically immoral with periodic abstinence. And I will grant you that in application, NFP is being widely misused to avoid pregnancy for non-just causes. Since it is not intrinsically immoral to periodically abstain, and there can be just causes, I can not see how NFP could be considered contraceptive unless misused.
Abstaining entirely until a serious threat has passed is entirely different from abstaining ONLY during the fertile window (about 1 week out of the month) of a woman's cycle so that the couple can enjoy relations for most of the month while only avoiding the procreative part. I believe the Church has been overly permissive in allowing the use of NFP in such a way that couples can enjoy relations while very specifically avoiding conception of a child. I can see the moral good in avoiding relations ENTIRELY to protect a child from being conceived in a dangerous situation, but I cannot see the good in avoiding ONLY during the fertile window so that relations can still be enjoyed for most of the month while only avoiding the child.
