1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

The Vatican Has Fallen

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

  1. AED

    AED Powers

    Yes. What is up with Germany? To be honest I can't even read articles like this anymore. I know it is happening and each new outrage deepens the bruise on my heart and worst of all the Heart of the Church. I am trying to fall back on St Paul's advice to think on all things good and true and beautiful ("whatever be true brothers--whatever be good..."). This isn't the same as putting our heads in the sand. It means focusing our gaze upon Christ and things above.
    There are so many layers to this suffering. The blows raining down on Jesus Himself and the agony He endures for our salvation in the Eternal Now-- for surely this time of judas like betrayal was clear to Him in the Garden of Gethsemane. I can't besr to add even one crumb to that betrayal but like Peter I want to draw my sword and cut off their ears. Stop up their mouths! But I musnt. So I am going to walk with Jesus through this terrible Golgotha as best I can. So sinfully and so weakly it makes me sick--I wish I could be St John or St magdalen or Veronica but the darker it gets the harder I struggle. Just clinging to the hem of Mother Mary's garment. That's me.

    So now I am off to my Holy Hour weather permitting and the I HOPE if ice doesn't scupper me I will get to Confession. It has been two weeks and believe me in my spiritual life that us too long. Sigh.
  2. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    It is preaching a gospel but not the Gospel of Jesus. Amoris Laetitia is chocolate coated poison. Smarmy language designed to cloak evil.

    Whatever his Argentinian superiors did to slight Pope Francis when he was a young man in Argentina, he is taking out his vengeance on the Church. As the old saying goes, vengeance is best served cold.

    We aren't qualified to call him what I'm convinced he is but we can call evil for what it is, and evil is what evil does.
  3. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    It's a load of tripe. The only Pope Francis that matters is the one leading the Church and it doesn't matter how many people liked him in Argentina or on the world stage, how he shepherds the universal Church is the true measure of what he is. Right now, everything about him screams WOLF.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    Byron, Totus tuus, josephite and 5 others like this.
  4. AED

    AED Powers

    Yes. What is up with Germany? To be honest I can't even read articles like this anymore. I know it is happening and each new outrage deepens the bruise on my heart and worst of all the Heart of the Church. I am trying to fall back on St Paul's advice to think on all things good and true and beautiful ("whatever be true brothers--whatever be good..."). This isn't the same as putting our heads in the sand. It means focusing our gaze upon Christ and things above.
    There are so many layers to this suffering. The blows raining down on Jesus Himself and the agony He endures for our salvation in the Eternal Now-- for surely this time of judas like betrayal was clear to Him in the Garden of Gethsemane. I can't besr to add even one crumb to that betrayal but like Peter I want to draw my sword and cut off their ears. Stop up their mouths! But I musnt. So I am going to walk with Jesus through this terrible Golgotha as best I can. So sinfully and so weakly it makes me sick--I wish I could be St John or St magdalen or Veronica but the darker it gets the harder I struggle. Just clinging to the hem of Mother Mary's garment. That's me.

    So now I am off to my Holy Hour weather permitting and the I HOPE if I've doesn't scupper me I will get to Confession. It has been two weeks and in my spiritual life that is too long.sigh.
    You nailed it Praetorian. Absolutely nailed it.
  5. sunburst

    sunburst Archangels

    Perhaps Pope Francis is doing it for the same reason he is transforming the John Paul II Institute for the study of marriage and the family,...he wants to replace JPII's Familiaris consortio with Amoris Laetitia.
    so as to render FC meaningless and move away from these outdated teachings...
    Light and josephite like this.
  6. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    “Confusion in the Church is triggered by those who surge dissent”
    Interview with Professor Massimo Borghesi, author of the first scientific study on Bergoglio’s thought, “What strikes about those who criticize the Pope, is their determination to highlight only the “negative” episodes. In blogs, on Facebook, they are constantly looking for the off-key cases”


    Pubblicato il 11/01/2018


    “There is some confusion in the Church”. Surely, “it is not caused by the Pope, but by those who, to oppose him, do not hesitate to multiply the voices of dissent”. So the philosopher Massimo Borghesi, author of the first scientific study on Francis’ thought, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. An intellectual biography (published by Jaka Book), who in this interview with Vatican Insider comments on the recent criticism on Joseph Ratzinger’s theological thought, the document written by the three Kazakh bishops on Amoris laetitia, and the neo-scholastic matrix of the traditionalist fringe accusing the Second Vatican Council and the Popes who have followed, of modernism.

    The new book by Enrico Maria Radaelli reviewed by Antonio Livi, with his criticism on Ratzinger - identified as one of those responsible for the “neo-modernist” theology with “heretical” drifts - shows that many opponents of the current Pontiff are in fact very critical of his predecessors and ultimately of the Second Vatican Council. What are your thoughts?

    This is the merit of Enrico Maria Radaelli’s recently published book, Al cuore di Ratzinger. At the heart of the world: having clearly clarified the theological-philosophical horizon that guides the opponents of Pope Francis. Radaelli has collaborated for three years at the department of Knowledge Philosophy, directed by Monsignor Antonio Livi, of the Pontifical Lateran University, and is curator of the Omnia Opera di Romano Amerio whose Iota unum, published in 1985, radically criticize the Second Vatican Council. The point is the Council which, for the sake of traditionalism, is responsible for the modernist errors that have marked the Church over the last 50 years. As Roberto de Mattei writes, he is also a critic of the Council and president of the Lepanto Foundation, “The current crisis in the Church was not born with Pope Francis and is not concentrated in one person, but dates to the Second Vatican Council and, even further back, to the years of modernism. Today a large part of the college of cardinals, of the episcopal body and, in general, of the clergy, is infected with modernism “. In this perspective, the systematic attacks against the current Pope are part of a precise strategy: to strike the Pontiff, who is opposed by many for his commitment to the poor, migrants, etc., in order to bring the Church back to the pre-conciliar position. Redaelli’s criticism shows that the dialectic between Benedict’s followers and Francis’ followers is a false dialectic. Benedict has never been “Ratzingerian”, he has never been the conservative that progressives claimed him to be. Ratzinger’s theology is the Council’s theology. Redaelli is absolutely right on this. Instead, he is absolutely wrong in the criticisms, curbed by an outdated Scholasticism which, examined one by one, reveal a profound theological-philosophical deficiency. The point, I repeat, is the Council and Francis has become the scapegoat of the anti-Council current. Monsignor Livi expresses this well in a positive review of Redaelli’s book: The reality is that neo-modernist theology, with its evident heretical drift, has gradually taken on a hegemonic role in the Church (in seminaries, pontifical universities, doctrinal commissions of Episcopal conferences, and various departments of the Holy See), and from these positions of power it has influenced the themes and language of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. All the post-conciliar Pope’s documents and teachings have suffered to different degree this influence. All of the popes of this period were conditioned, one way or another, by this hegemony “. For Livi no Pope saves himself from the modernist wave, not Paul VI, not John Paul II, not Benedict XVI. For traditionalists, the whole Church today is “modernist”. Striking Bergoglio is the strategy to strike Vatican II”.

    In his writings since and on the Council, the then young theologian Joseph Ratzinger overturns the pattern with which many are accustomed to looking at what happened in Vatican II: he writes that “at the Council there were clearly two comparing options. On the one hand “a thought that starts from all the vastness of Christian Tradition, and on its grounds, tries to describe the constant breadth of ecclesial possibilities”. On the other “a purely systematic thought, which admits only the present juridical form of the Church as a criterion for her reflections, and therefore necessarily fears that any outside movement would mean “falling into emptiness”. The “conservatism” of this second option, according to Ratzinger, was rooted “in its extraneousness to history and therefore, in the end, in a “lack “of Tradition, that is, of openness towards the whole of Christian history”. The future Benedict XVI spoke here of the debate on collegiality. Do you think that these considerations may help to read the current debate on Amoris laetitia?

    The traditionalists are stuck at Neo-Scholasticism, that is to say to a particular interpretation of Thomism that, in the Catholic vulgate, had become a dogma. For them, the “preambula fidei” are decisive to gain access to a faith whose content is resolved in a dogma to which reason pays its “respect” in an “unquestionable” way. Reason leads to the incontrovertible elimination of doubt. An “unquestionable” faith is a fully “rational” faith. We are faced with an “apologetic rationalism”, resulting from a historical process that neotomism refused to analyze. In the general reaction to the traditionalism of the nineteenth century, in the name of Bonald, Lamennais, Bonney, Bautain, who in turn reacted to the Enlightenment in the name of fideism, Thomism extended Vatican I’s lesson, which condemned many positions of the traditionalists, towards a Christian rationalism sui generis. Reaction to a reaction, rationalism against fideism, Neo-Scholastica was a philosophy enlightened by theology without being able to admit it. This “hybrid” situation will cause many problems to such an extent that a thinker like Etienne Gilson will have to work hard to reset the right balance between faith and reason. This was just to tell you that the notion of “tradition”, claimed by today’s traditionalists, is paradoxically a “modern” notion. Traditionalists reject the modern and, at the same time, have a conception of the typically modern reason. Ratzinger will notice this during his research on St. Bonaventure in 1954: the medieval Christian tradition was not the modern tradition formulated by neo-tomists. For neo-scholastics, Revelation is reduced to acceptance of dogma. The idea of Revelation as God’s action in time, in history, as a dramatic tension between grace and human freedom, is completely absent. Neo-Scholasticism lacks historical reflection, theology of history as a philosophy of history. The result is a “positivism” of a passively accepted Revelation starting from the “preambula fidei”. So was their way to bridge the gap between natural reason and revealed Logos.

    continued ...
  7. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    continued ...

    What do you think of the long document, signed by the three bishops of Kazakhstan, which criticizes the Amoris laetitia, accusing the document of having cleared divorce?

    That document adds nothing new to the debate that accompanied the publication of Amoris laetitia. The three Kazakh bishops only wanted to reiterate their rejection of the papal document. Some of them were known for their dissent, and it wouldn’t have made any headlines if it hadn’t been yet another pretext for stirring up reactions against the Pope. In reality, after Cardinal Müller did not offer himself to play the traditionalists’ game, the letter appears to be a will-o’-wisps. The Cardinal said to you, referring to the volume by Rocco Buttiglione, friendly answers to Amoris laetitia’s critics, of which he wrote the preface: “I am convinced that he has dispelled the doubts of the cardinals and many Catholics who feared that in “Amoris Laetitia” a substantial alteration of the doctrine of faith had taken place both on the valid and fruitful way of receiving Holy Communion as well as on the indissolubility of a marriage validly contracted between baptized”. After Müller‘s statement, what is the point of continuing to write letters calling the Pope to respect “tradition”? Cardinal Müller was the Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith, the guardian of orthodoxy recognized as such also by those who criticized the Pope. Now, the moment he declares that Amoris laetitia does not violate the tradition of the Church, he is no longer recognized by them as authoritative. This is a low-profile game that makes us understand how the current dispute is, on the part of Francis’ opponents, aimed not at understanding the current dispute but at delegitimizing the opponent. Roberto de Mattei stated this openly in the interview I mentioned earlier: “There are moments in our life and in the history of the Church in which we are obliged to choose between two fields, as Saint Augustine says, without ambiguity and compromise. In this regard, the recent publication in the Acta of Pope Francis’ letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires brings the positions back to two opposite poles. The position of those cardinals, bishops and theologians who believe it is possible to interpret Amoris laetitia in continuity with Familiaris consortio n. 84 and other documents of the Magisterium is crushed. Amoris laetitia is a document that polarizes: it must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. There is no third position and the inclusion of Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentine bishops has the merit of making it clear”.

    Do you agree with those who repeat that there is “confusion” in the Church today?

    The confusion is evident. However, it is not the Pope who provokes it, but those who, to oppose him, do not hesitate to multiply the voices of dissent, the signs of failure, the demobilization and the churches going empty. As if the pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, had been quiet walks and the crowds had poured out at Sunday masses. The year 89 has also deprived the conservatives of historical memory. What strikes about the Pope’s critics is their determination to highlight the “negative” episodes. In blogs, on Facebook, they are constantly looking for outrageous cases. There is the impression that they have no eyes for the positive testimonies that exist, countless, in the world. Also in this they are “modern”. They participate in the blinding of media that have eyes only for the negative. They actually need the negative in order to “be”. They criticize Hegel, as Redaelli and Livi who accuse Ratzinger of being Hegelian do, and at the same time they are “dialectics”. For them to pose means to oppose. Like in Hegel’s”.

    Dante said that the opposite of a heresy is not the truth, but an opposite heresy. Who criticizes Amoris laetitia, claiming that the document and its interpretations favor subjectivism and ethics of the situation, does not risk falling into the opposite extreme, that objectivism that strips the subject, of their intentions, mitigating circumstances and personal stories?

    Objectivism is a characteristic of Neo-Scholasticism because neotomism opposes modern subjectivity. In his opposition, he throws the baby out with the bathwater. It does not understand that the dimension of the subject, of freedom, is implicated by Revelation itself. Otherwise we would have a God emperor of the world not a God on the cross. For traditionalists, on the contrary, every emphasis of the subject, of the “experience” of truth, is subjectivism and, therefore, modernism. The accusations against Amoris laetitia can also be explained in this way. For critics, between the inviolable norm of indissolubility of marriage and the particular case, there is nothing in between. Every peculiar declination of the norm starting from the concrete conditions of the subject is a fall in relativism, in the ethics of the situation, in praxism. They have no idea of the facets implied in moral theology and canon law. Everywhere they fear the danger of subjectivism. Traditionalists distrust not only ethical liberalism but also political liberalism. The opposition to Vatican II is a “theological-political” opposition to the principle of religious freedom enshrined in the Council. As de Mattei says, “There can be an authentic and solemn but erroneous act of the Magisterium. Such was, for example, in my opinion, the conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanae that, beyond its pastoral character, is undoubtedly a magisterial act and, certainly, also contradicts, at least indirectly and implicitly, the Church’s doctrine on religious freedom”. De Mattei does not wonder here whether the tradition of the Sillabo is in conflict with the Church’s tradition of the first four centuries, up to Theodosius, stuck at the principle of religious freedom reaffirmed in Dignitatis Humanae. This is what I explain in my book Criticism of political theology. From Augustine to Peterson: the end of the Constantinian era (2013). Here too we see the celebration of a historical side of tradition that does not deal with the entire development of the Church’s tradition. Traditionalists are anti-modern and illiberal but they are against the Pope. Illiberals and Protestants: a paradox. In reality, they are against Peter because, after the Council, he abandoned the vestiges of royal power. They criticize his authority because he does not want to have an absolute authority. They do not like the shepherd’s simplicity, they love ermines. They mistake sacredness for frills of power, enamels and golden frames. The Holy Roman Empire is what they miss and dream of, as they never came to terms with its disappearance.

    For many years now, Cardinal Ratzinger questioned the actual validity of marriages celebrated without faith. At the origin of many discussions in the current ecclesial season there seems to be, at the core, the relationship with modernity and the question on evangelization: how is the Gospel proclaimed today, in increasingly “liquid” contexts, and de-Christianized and secularized societies?

    In your interview, Cardinal Müller recalled Ratzinger’s reflection, “Faced with the often-inadequate education in Catholic doctrine, and in a secularized environment in which Christian marriage is not a convincing example of life, the question arises also on the validity of marriages celebrated according to the canonical ritual. There is a natural right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This also applies to Catholics who have departed from the faith or maintained only a superficial bond with the Church. How can we consider the situation of those Catholics who do not appreciate or even deny the sacramentality of Christian marriage? Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to reflect on this without having a ready-made solution… It is possible that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament, certainly with the appropriate precautions as not to scandalize the community of the faithful and not to weaken the conviction of marriage indissolubility”. The cardinal’s words are clear. From this point of view, Amoris laetitia constitutes an effective deepening of the Church’s position on marriage. It does so by keeping in mind the inviolability of the norm that is not attenuated and, at the same time, the actual historical conditions in which the Christian message is found today. The apostolic exhortation has a missionary point of view, of a Christianity that despite the Christian signs coming from history, takes place in a world, to a large extent, neo-pagan world. This is where the Pope’s position differs from that of the traditionalists. For the Pope, it is the missionary horizon, dictated by the proclamation and the encounter of witnesses marked by God’s mercy, that must guide the presence of the Christian in today’s world. For traditionalists, on the contrary, it is the naked reaffirmation of dogma, in its diamantine purity, which must guide a militant presence that sees today’s world as adversary of a struggle that will never end. Bearing witness is not compassion, mercy, ideal firmness. No, it is battle, a dialectic contrast between conflicting identities. In their criticism of the notion of “dialogue” of the progressives, the traditionalists have become, without realizing it, Manicheans, in hatred of the pacifism’s irenicism, they appear as war singers”.

  8. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    Imagine this scenario:

    A Bishop close to the Pope has so much egg on his face that nobody takes him seriously. The same Bishop wants to sling mud at anyone with an opposing opinion, especially someone well qualified to expose his errors such as a respected Theologian, Canon Lawyer, Cardinal or Bishop. What does he do without leaving himself open to more ridicule? Find some schmutz who wants to be seen as a serious thinker and authority on matters Catholic, massage his ego by getting him a nice gig on a well know news outlet and feed him garbage. Said shmutz, chuffed at his suddenly exalted position and connections, takes the garbage in and puts the garbage out believing that it is theologically, doctrinally and canonically sound because its source is a Bishop close to the Pope.​

    In one of his exchanges with (I think but could be wrong) Chris Ferrara, Stephen Walford defended what he had written because Cardinal Coccopalmiero told him that it was right.

    Now, I'm not suggesting that Walford is such a schmutz, but I do wonder sometimes at the quality of journalism and opinion pieces both in Catholic and secular media.
    Praetorian likes this.
  9. AED

    AED Powers

    Well said Dolours. Some years ago we had a man teaching French at our high school. A real "hail fellow well met" kind of guy. Another faculty member of very impressive credentials who had lived in Frsnce and had taught French literature remarked to me one day " well he is teaching something--but it is not French." I had to laugh. The thing is the students knew it too but he was so easy going about grading they liked it. It was an easy A. Then they got to college and were horrified to find how I'll prepared they had been. The analogy seems very apt here.
    Dolours and josephite like this.
  10. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Just as in Ireland during the Penal times and in England it was not the hierarchy of clergy that stayed faithful so much as the ordinary lay people. The Sensum Fidelium... the spiritual common sense of the ordinary people worked then works now. It is the ordinary Catholics that are making an outcry, they know right from wrong and are making their feelings very clear. This gives me great, great hope.
  11. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    Piercing questions. And fears which we all share-you are not alone. Many here are facing an excruciating dilemma, torn between loyalty and Truth. It's a notoriously difficult choice, without precedence or guidelines and, naturally, many of us have different solutions. I may be wrong, but my thinking on it is that I can legitimately decide for myself that our pope is a wicked man, with evil intent for the Church, based on his words and actions. This is terribly unfortunate, but the Church has often been there before, particularly during that couple of centuries between the end of the thirteenth century and the time of the Reformation. However, I can't bring myself to think him a heretic, because I don't have either the expertise or the authority to make such a defining decision. His wiliness, which is no credit to him, I attribute to his cleverness in knowing just how far to go.

    Terrible times, God help us.
    josephite, Mary's child and AED like this.
  12. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    If dissent is to conform to the constant, two-millenia-old teaching of the Church, then I would say that most of us here are dissentors. You might as well report us to the inquisition.

    I stand here, an objectivist. satan was the first subjectivist.
  13. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    What a load of utter garbage!

    You are hurling stones at Christ David.

    To dissent from error is not wrong. It is our duty as Catholics and Christians.

    To be an accomplice to the dismantling of the Laws of Christ is the greatest evil there can be and you are a party to it.

    I do not envy you on Judgement Day when you have to stare into His Countenance and He asks you "What did you do?"
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  14. Mario

    Mario Powers


    This is a very well thought out evaluation of the current dilemma. Professor Borghesi appears to agree with what he calls, the Holy Father's missionary, horizontal view. He also perceives that this dovetails well with the reflection of Ratzinger above. Borghesi also regrets the Pope's decision to publish the Argentinian bishops letter in the Acta because he sees that decision as unproductive: it pushes the debate back to two opposite poles. Borghesi perceives the theology encompassing this debate as more fluid and not black vs. white! He sees the neo-Modernist danger, yet thinks the neo-Scholastics (read MOG) are unopen to peculiar declinations.

    Thank you. I found it refreshing. The key question remains, "How do we evangelize in a world that has lost it's Catholic moral tradition, where the millennial generation no longer has the foundational tools to readily grasp the truth? One might say we are back to the pagan days of the Roman Empire, however, the difference is that now we have a intact 2000 year tradition of moral theology that largely has been rejected. The problem is that the neo-modernists see an opportunity to throw that tradition in the trash bin! Where I do disagree with the Professor is in the idea that the position most people hold on MOG has lost its historical context. I have to give this more thought. I appreciate that Borghesi has given us some tools to work with. My starting point will be to go back and read the conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanae that, beyond its pastoral character, is undoubtedly a magisterial act and, certainly, also contradicts, at least indirectly and implicitly, the Church’s doctrine on religious freedom. This supposed contradiction might be a way to better understand Borghesi's viewpoint.

    Safe in the Barque of Peter!
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    josephite likes this.
  15. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    I'm very sorry to see you, Praetorian, giving this rather ridiculous response to perfectly reasoned and respectful comments about the current situation regarding criticisms of the Pope.

    What you and others mean when you call articles or comments, 'garbage' is that you disagree with them. Nothing more! You are welcome to your opinion that you disagree with the comments but describing them like that is worthless.

    You think the Pope and the hierarchy are in error. Fine. But that is only your opinion and it is shared by a limited number of people although, of course, on this forum it is shared by most of the active posters. But that is not exactly a lot of people is it?

  16. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    Thank you Mario for a reasoned response!

  17. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    I am more than happy to disappoint you.
    As if you have never dismissed something because you disagreed with it. Ha!
    That is the pot calling the kettle black.
  18. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Hi Josephite,
    I know you wrote this to DeGaulle, but I thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

    We can guess at someone's intent, but we can never really know what they are thinking inside or their motivations, so in charity we are not supposed to judge someone's inner intent. That is what the Church means when she teaches we should not "judge". It means we should not judge someone's interior motives, for we cannot know them. That being said, we are allowed to judge what a person does on the exterior. Indeed we have to just to navigate our way in the world.

    If a man robs us at knife-point, it is not our job to say "He is evil" because only God can decide that. Perhaps there are other factors at play. He may be mentally unbalanced or starving, who knows? We can however call the police and have him arrested. That is because we have made a judgement about him. We have not judged his interior motives, but we have judged his actions and decided that he is dangerous to the public good.

    Currently we face a similar situation in some ways. I would not presume to know what the Pope's inner intentions are. Indeed I cannot know. Nor can any of us. We may have some very spot on educated guesses, but we can never know for sure.

    What we can say is this:

    This Pope has allowed to flourish under his Papacy a wide swath of clergy and laity who are anywhere from heterodox to heretical in their propositions. He has not silenced them. Indeed in many cases he promotes them to very prominent and powerful positions.

    We know when someone does say something this Pope does not wish to be propagated he comes down very hard on them. This normally happens to conservatives. So his lack of silencing the heterodox and heretical is most likely not out of weakness in controlling his subordinates.

    He also has come down very strongly against anyone who clings to the faith as it had been known up until his Papacy. Calling them names such as rigorists, Pharisees, etc.

    To all appearances he wishes to remake the Church and radically change the way it deals with moral questions. Favoring a very strong "grey area" approach where there is no clear moral teaching.

    On a related note, we also know from prophecy and history that there has been a long running movement by Freemasons, Modernists and others to reshape the Church from both the inside and out. My personal opinion is what we are currently witnessing is the culmination of this long-term effort. It is a coup in progress. A coup in slow motion. A great apostasy from the faith. Indeed not only an apostasy, but an attempt to replace the very Church herself with a counterfeit. Of course they would not call it a counterfeit. I think they very much believe what they are saying. It is just not Catholic. It is some other...thing.

    Many today who call themselves Catholic do not even understand the Catholic faith as it has always been taught. They divorce, remarry, contracept, attend homosexual mock-weddings, don't go to confession, and do not understand even the most basic teachings of the faith.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  19. Julia

    Julia Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

    Not wanting to put a spanner in the works, but a thought came to me and I wonder what others might think on reflection.

    We had a run of faithful, holy Popes from say Paul VI, then John Paul I and Saint John Paul II and finally Benedict XVI. By that I mean they proposed the traditional teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as we understand it from the very early days even back to the twelve Apostles.

    What was happening in the parishes, in reality it appears 80% of Catholics were doing their own thing certainly as far as contraception is concerned. And I hazard a guess there was a huge failure to keep the 6th Commandment by a large percentage of practising Catholics. Indeed I remember quite some years ago hearing 80% of the youth were leaving the Church as soon as they reached their teens. Mass apostasy was well on the way years ago.

    So now God sends us a Pope who uses (reverse psychology?) the negative to highlight the reality on the ground, and boy has he made a mess just like he said he would. Now some people are screaming from the rooftops. Well, I wonder if we have not just got what we as a whole wanted. 80% disobeying the Commandments of God before Pope Francis got elected sounds like a field hospital to me.

    I think we need to pray for each other, and beg God to inspire us to put right the wrongs that have got us all in this mess which some now recognise as a crisis.

    Keep Watch and Pray.

    You know, the more I think about it. Jesus gave us the Chaplet of Divine Mercy for these very times. We need to grasp the Rosary Beads and wholeheartedly pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for the whole Church. And beg Jesus to help us.

    Who knows, maybe God is allowing the Vatican to fall down to where we have already fallen as a body. Yes some are staunch and faithful and all that jazz. But the 80% might just be the ones God is working to restore.

    Oh! the penny just dropped. Jesus came to save sinners, the goodies were in with a chance as long as they stayed within the Ten Commandments.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    Booklady, Mario, josephite and 4 others like this.
  20. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Write this: Before I come as the just Judge, I am coming first as the King of Mercy. Before the day of justice arrives, there will be given to people a sign in the heavens of this sort:

    All light in the heavens will be extinguished, and there will be great darkness over the whole earth. Then the sign of the cross will be seen in the sky, and from the openings where the hands and the feet of the Savior were nailed will come forth great lights which will light up the earth for a period of time. This will take place shortly before the last day
    (Diary, 83).


    Byron, Booklady, josephite and 2 others like this.

Share This Page