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. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod

    Con't

    Strong previous record

    Cardinal Müller has frequently spoken strongly in defense of the Church’s teaching on marriage and family over the past three years (see here and here). And in a speech in Oviedo, Spain, last year, he emphatically said that Amoris Laetitia does not open the door to Holy Communion for civilly remarried divorcees, reaffirming Art. 84 in Pope St. John Paul’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio which states that remarried divorcees cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion unless they are able to live in “complete continence”.

    But critics say he seems oblivious to the concerns about the divergent interpretations of the document — deep apprehensions reportedly shared far beyond the four cardinals — and suspect that after the Pope recently removed three of the cardinal's collaborators without giving a reason, and with a formal correction possibly imminent, he felt compelled, or was compelled, to show the Pope an unmistakeable sign of loyalty. Others argue that the Italian the cardinal uses in the interview is more nuanced than the English translation, that he knows what he is doing, and is trying to defend orthodoxy and Church unity in his own way.

    A significant number of episcopal conferences around the world have expressed their concerns to the Pope, the Register has learned, and like the four cardinals, have received no response. Also before the document was published, 30 cardinals, having seen an advance draft of the apostolic exhortation, wrote to the Pope expressing their reservations, especially on the issue of communion for remarried divorcees, warning that the document would weaken the three essential sacraments of the Church: the Eucharist, marriage, and confession. The Pope never responded to that letter either, a Vatican source told the Register.

    The Holy See Press Office declined to comment on the rejection of the CDF corrections of Amoris Laetitia, saying Jan. 2 it “doesn’t comment on the iter [process] of papal documents”.

    Cardinal Müller also did not respond when asked by the Register Jan. 9 whether he is aware of the reported confusion deriving from differing interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, or why he believes no formal correction is needed when his dicastery’s own corrections to Amoris Laetitia were not accepted.
     
  2. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Strange, strange goings on at the Vatican ,strange, strange ,strange, Spooksville. Who knows? I thought Pope Benedict resigning was spooky, but it keeps getting spookier and spookier...

    upload_2017-1-10_21-8-25.jpeg
     
    Booklady likes this.
  3. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod

    So ... the opposition is MUCH broader and well organized than we've been lead to believe by the papal maximalists. I guess these numerous national bishops' conferences, the 30 cardinals and the CDF are ALL a bunch of schismatic rigid malcontents who can be written off as "attacking" this poor, humble and merciful pope.
     
  4. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod

    http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?ID=1396

    Going with the flow: Amoris Laetitia and the secular temptation
    By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Jan 10, 2017

    Imagine three Catholic priests, each with his own parish:

    • Father X has lost his faith. He continues serving as a pastor, going through the motions, because he’s accustomed to the work and he thinks he helps people. That is, he thinks he helps people, with his counsel and encouragement. He is diligent and conscientious, in his own peculiar way; he celebrates the sacraments because he sees that they make people feel better. His thinking is thoroughly secularized, and so is his preaching. He offers sound common-sense advice.
    • Father Y is reasonably orthodox but terribly lazy. If pressed he will affirm the faith, but he is rarely pressed. As a practical matter his understanding of the priesthood is that there will be no heavy lifting. He celebrates Mass only when required to do so, and then as quickly as possible. Confessions are rare in his parish, and counseling sessions are brief. Sometimes he feels guilty about shirking his pastoral work, but he gets over it with the help of a friend, Jack Daniels.
    • Father Z is young, energetic, and idealistic. He loves his work as a priest. He is inspired by the leadership of Pope Francis and determined to follow the Pope’s lead. He is particularly excited by Amoris Laetitia, seeing it as a wonderful opportunity to bring lapsed Catholics back to active participation in the life of the Church.
    Now imagine a Catholic layman, John Doe, who was married in his youth, at a time when he wasn’t at all serious about his faith. The marriage fell apart, ending in an uncontested divorce. Eventually he met another woman, and—still being AWOL from the Church—married her in a civil ceremony. They have children, who attend the local Catholic school. Now he is rediscovering his faith. He has read about Amoris Laetitia, and wonders whether he might someday be allowed to receive Communion once again. One Saturday afternoon he decides to consult with his pastor.

    Imagine how the scenario would play out, if Mr. Doe’s pastor is one of the three hypothetical priests sketched above.

    • Father X would encourage him to receive Communion. It would make him feel better, and that, to Father X, is what’s important. Remember, Father X does not believe what the Church teaches about marriage or about the Eucharist. So for him this is the only reasonable answer to Mr. Doe’s question.
    • Father Y would probably also encourage him to receive—not because he thinks that is the right answer, but because any other answer would take so long to explain. That big ballgame starts in just 20 minutes, and Father Y wants to be out of the confessional and into his easy chair before the kickoff.
    • Father Z would engage in a series of long, probing discussions with Mr. Doe, as recommended by Pope Francis. He would explore the failure of the first marriage, help John to acknowledge his failures in that union, speak about the need for commitment to his new relationship and to the children, and ultimately—am I wrong?—Father Z would encourage John Doe to receive Communion.
    Is it a coincidence that the idealistic priest, inspired by Amoris Laetitia, eventually does what the faithless priest and the feckless priest would have done? There’s no question that the final result—whether it’s reached by Father X, Y, or Z, will meet with broad public approval. But should it tell us something that the lengthy, demanding, soul-searching process recommended by Amoris Laetitia seems to lead ineluctably toward the same destination that the secularized priest would have reached instinctively, and the lazy priest by default?
     
  5. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod

    http://fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective920.asp

    Cardinal Müller Covers His Eyes
    by Christopher A. Ferrara
    January 9, 2017

    According to Stanze Vaticane, the blog for the Italian TV channel TGCom24, Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller has rejected any correction of Pope Francis concerning those explosive sections of Amoris Laetitia (especially Chapter 8, ¶¶ 302-305) which prompted the four cardinals to present their dubia to Pope Francis. Those passages of Amoris clearly open the door to Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” in “certain cases” — as bishop after bishop is now declaring — while appearing to reduce exceptionless negative precepts of the natural law (including “Thou shalt not commit adultery”) to “general rules” and mere “objective ideals” rather than divine commands from which no one can claim an exemption.

    But Müller’s choice of words is very curious. As reported by Stanze Vaticane, during an interview with TGCom 24 (translations mine), Müller stated:

    “Everyone, above all the cardinals of the Roman Church [sic], have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was astonished, however, that this became public, almost constraining the Pope to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I do not like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off. It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith as Saint Thomas has said. We are very far from a correction and I say that it harms the Church to discuss these things publicly.

    Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine, and we can make out the whole doctrine of the Church on matrimony, all the doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history. Pope Francis asks for discernment of the situation of those persons who live in an irregular union, that is, not according to the doctrine of the Church on matrimony, and he asks for aid of these persons to find a path for a new integration in the Church according to the conditions of the Sacraments, of the Christian message on matrimony. But I do not see any contraposition: on the one hand we have the clear doctrine on matrimony, and on the other the obligation of the Church to concern herself with these persons in difficulty.”

    First of all, why is Müller “astonished” that the dubia became public? The four cardinals state clearly in their accompanying letter that while their dubia were first submitted privately to Francis, “The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.”

    That is their right as cardinals, and indeed it is the right of any member of the faithful:

    “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (Canon 212, § 3)

    Secondly, why is a “possible fraternal correction” deemed “very far off” — meaning that there is a potential for one — when Müller says at one and the same time that Amoris presents the Catholic doctrine on matrimony and that there is no opposition to that doctrine in the call for “discernment” of the situation of people in “irregular unions”? If Amoris were really so clear, and there were really no contradiction between Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Francis’ call for “discernment,” Müller would say simply that a correction of Francis is unnecessary. He would not say a correction is “not possible at this moment…”

    I am afraid Müller’s statement falls into the category of so much of what has come out of the Vatican over the past fifty years: artfully worded doubletalk that tries to have it both ways.

    Now let us be serious. Cardinal Müller knows very well that Amoris is not only problematic, but a veritable H-bomb targeted on the foundations of Christian life. As the four cardinals note in their presentation to a stonily silent Francis, different bishops interpret Amoris differently — some pro, some con — regarding the admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments (in “certain cases”) without a prior amendment of life. Müller also knows well that Francis has sided with the pro faction. In his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires regarding their “guidelines” for the “implementation” of Amoris, Francis declared there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris than their guidelines, which provide as follows:

    “If it is acknowledged that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351).”

    Accordingly, the four cardinals rightly note with alarm (while Francis stays silent) that interpreters of Amoris “come to different conclusions… due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life.” Thus, as they conclude:

    “In this sense, what is at stake in Amoris Laetitia is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can — under certain circumstances — be readmitted to the sacraments.

    “Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life. Thus, while the first question of the dubia concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.

    Indeed, the fifth question presented asks the Roman Pontiff, of all people, if following Amoris “does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, n.56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?” In short: Is Francis — the Pope — authorizing departures from the natural law?

    Müller knows all of this. And he knows the whole Catholic world is in turmoil following the publication of Amoris, as some dioceses now regard as “mercy” what others still regard as a mortal sin: the reception of Holy Communion while living in adultery. There is no way he cannot know what is happening. Yet he has chosen to put on a blindfold in order to be able to say that a correction of Francis “is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith…”

    Really? If not now, when? After thousands and perhaps millions of souls have put their eternal salvation at risk by receiving Holy Communion while engaging in adulterous sexual relations? After the already weakened faith in Holy Matrimony is completely destroyed in many by the spectacle of people who are not married being treated as if they were? After the very concept of mortal sin is de facto abolished by the subversive notion, promoted by Francis in Amoris (¶ 303), that conscience can properly counsel the continuation of gravely sinful conduct as “what for now [!] is the most generous response which can be given to God… while yet not fully the objective ideal”?

    What a sad day for the Church when the very head of its doctrinal congregation blinds himself to what is perhaps, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has observed, the greatest doctrinal crisis since the Arian heresy. How sad as well that, in contrast to the four cardinals who confront the crisis with eyes wide open, we must say of Müller what Our Lord said of the Pharisees: “Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” (Matt 15:14)
     
    Mac likes this.
  6. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    I don't think one can read Muller's "I have spoken" comment without understanding it to be a sort of "correction of the intended 'correctors'" He doesn't like the vibes already going everywhere towards some envisioning of schism, as if approved by the Church Herself.
     
  7. djmoforegon

    djmoforegon Archangels

    The following are quotes from a document (Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority) on the Vatican's website. The link to the entire document is here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...nts/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20111024_nota_en.html

    “In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for

    a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of

    ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of

    monetary exchanges similar to the national central

    banks.”



    “If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice,

    the negative effects that will follow on the social,

    political and economic level will be destined to create a

    climate of growing hostility and even violence, and

    ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic

    institutions, even the ones considered most solid.”


    The Pope acknowledges that if a central monetary authority is established it will mean a loss of sovereignty and independence among nations, but such “costs” are well worth the overall societal and economic gains:

    “Of course, this transformation will be made at the

    cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each

    nation’s powers to a world authority and to

    regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time

    when the dynamism of human society and the

    economy and the progress of technology are transcending

    borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a

    globalized world.”
     
  8. djmoforegon

    djmoforegon Archangels

     
  9. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod

    ...and being "schismatics" and "heretics" too? Sorry, this juvenile nonsense will no longer go uncorrected here.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-raised-concerns-about-amoris-laetitia-draft/

    Thirty cardinals ‘raised concerns’ about Amoris Laetitia draft
    Staff Reporter•Wednesday, 11 Jan 2017
    [​IMG]
    Cardinals and bishops wait for the start of a consistory in St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican last month (AP)

    A 'significant number' of bishops’ conferences reportedly also expressed misgivings

    The Pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia has caused widespread concern among cardinals and bishops, according to new reports.

    Edward Pentin, veteran Vatican reporter for the National Catholic Register, reports: “Before the document was published, 30 cardinals, having seen an advance draft of the apostolic exhortation, wrote to the Pope expressing their reservations, especially on the issue of Communion for remarried divorcees, warning that the document would weaken the three essential sacraments of the Church: the Eucharist, marriage and confession.”

    Pentin also said that a “significant number” of bishops’ conferences have expressed concerns about the document. Furthermore, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), having seen a draft, submitted several pages of revisions. These were not accepted, according to Pentin. The Pope has also not replied to either the 30 cardinals or the bishops’ conferences.

    The most significant public response to Amoris Laetitia so far has been the five dubia issued by four cardinals, asking for clarification. One of the four, Cardinal Raymond Burke, has recently said they might issue a formal correction of the Pope if he does not reply. Another, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, said that any such correction would first be issued privately.
     
    picadillo likes this.
  10. picadillo

    picadillo Powers


    Thank you BrianK for this report. Whatever happened to the "servant of servants". Pretty pathetic.
     
    little me and BrianK like this.
  11. DivineMercy

    DivineMercy Archangels

    I just wanted to add to this thought by sharing what I came across in my reading the other day. I like to read documents on the Vatican's website, and yesterday read Acerbo Nimis (on Teaching Christian doctrine) by Pope Pius X written in 1905. I find this so relevant to today:

    2. It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life - for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones - but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there. They rarely give thought to God, the Supreme Author and Ruler of all things, or to the teachings of the faith of Christ. They know nothing of the Incarnation of the Word of God, nothing of the perfect restoration of the human race which He accomplished. Grace, the greatest of the helps for attaining eternal things, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments by which we obtain grace, are entirely unknown to them. They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it. And so they arrive at life's end in such a condition that, lest all hope of salvation be lost, the priest is obliged to give in the last few moments of life a summary teaching of religion, a time which should be devoted to stimulating the soul to greater love for God. And even this as too often happens only when the dying man is not so sinfully ignorant as to look upon the ministration of the priest as useless, and then calmly faces the fearful passage to eternity without making his peace with God. And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."
    [3]
    --------------
    It is a very short Encyclical, but a very good read and I felt relevant to the topic of sin and the ignorance of our culture.

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_15041905_acerbo-nimis.html
     
    josephite, Clare A and djmoforegon like this.
  12. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    Edward Peters Nails It: What About Canon 915?



    Edward Peters is an American canon lawyer and an adviser to the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s supreme court.



    [​IMG]



    This from a Cruxnow.com article by canon lawyer Ed Peters, entitled: Conscience can’t be the final arbiter on who gets Communion:

    Amoris, never mentioning Canons 915 or 916, seems to think that some process of pastoral “discernment” or “accompaniment” can lead divorced-and-remarried Catholics, even those not committed to a continent relationship as befits all non-married persons, to the point where, having satisfied themselves that they are not sinning, may approach for holy Communion, and the minister, irrespective of the communicant’s objective public status, must distribute it to them.

    In other words, Canon 915, the central, historically uncontested, and canonically unambiguous norm controlling ministerial decisions to distribute holy Communion in such cases, is simply ignored.

    It is the pervasive and steadfast refusal of nearly all “Amoris supporters” (I dislike the term, but it saves time) to face squarely the ancient tradition behind, and the unambiguous interpretation of, Canon 915 that dooms virtually all defenses of Amoris so far to irrelevance at best and to pastoral and even doctrinal disasters at worst. One cannot coherently discuss reception of holy Communion by divorced-and-remarried Catholics while ignoring the plain text of Canon 915http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2982:edward-peters-nails-it-what-about-canon-915

     
    little me, josephite and BrianK like this.
  13. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Heresy is the very worst of all the sins. It is like a metastic cancer it will quickly destroy the entire body. Catholics need to be in a real fury to fight it.

    A REAL FURY.

    2 Peter 2:1-22

    But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; ...

    [​IMG]
     
    Beth B, little me, JAA and 1 other person like this.
  14. Clare A

    Clare A Archangels


    Divine Mercy, thank you for this little gem. I had not heard of it, but how beautifully written and appropriate it is. Even practising Catholics don't know their faith or are confused through bad catechesis. I know I need to study it more as well. But there is a huge number of 'ordinary people' in our society who live entirely from day to day, apparently more concerned about the outcome of TV dance contests and the lives of celebrities. The things of God don't seem to feature at all in their lives. It is a tragedy but certainly nothing new.
     
  15. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Archangels

    Not too many years ago I asked my former pastor a question and he told me to go look it up in the Catechism
    :(
     
  16. Harper

    Harper Guest

    From the Spectator online:

    Why more and more priests can’t stand Pope Francis

    He has been pigeonholed as fearless reformer, but questions are arising about his judgment
    Damian Thompson

    [​IMG]


    On 2 January, the Vatican published a letter from Pope Francis to the world’s bishops in which he reminded them that they must show ‘zero tolerance’ towards child abuse. The next day, the American Week magazine published an article that told the story of ‘Don Mercedes’ — Fr Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest with a passion for expensive cars and underage boys.

    In 2012, Pope Benedict stripped Inzoli of his priestly faculties, effectively defrocking him. In 2014, however, they were restored to him — by Pope Francis, who warned him to stay away from minors.

    Then, finally, the Italian civil authorities caught up with this serial groper of teenagers in the confessional. Last summer Inzoli was sentenced to four years and nine months in jail for paedophile offences. The Vatican, under ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis, refused to supply evidence that prosecutors wanted.

    If Pope Benedict XVI had displayed such a hypocritical attitude towards a clerical child abuser, the roof would have fallen in on him: he’d have been driven out of office instead of resigning.

    But most of the world’s media have pigeon-holed Francis as a fearless reformer, doing battle against Vatican mafiosi, kiddie-fiddlers and ‘fundamentalists’. This perception made it easy for the Pope’s allies to keep the name of Mauro Inzoli out of English–speaking news outlets until last week.

    That perception may change in 2017. For more than two years, leading Catholics have been at each other’s throats over a plan — surreptitiously supported by the Pope — to allow divorced-and-remarried Mass-goers to receive Holy Communion. The secular media have treated this, understandably, as an inside-the-beltway story. It’s difficult to make headlines out of a controversy that even theologians find hard to grasp.

    At the end of last year, however, the communion row began to overlap with other controversies, all of which raised questions not only about the Pope’s judgment but also about his state of mind.

    A man who, when he took office, seemed endearingly informal — paying his own bill at his hotel, refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace, making surprise phone calls to members of the public — now cuts a less sympathetic figure.

    He has broken with a far more significant papal tradition than living in the papal apartments or travelling in limousines. He has defied the convention that a pope, once elected, ceases to play nasty curial politics.

    Pope Benedict respected this convention. Liberals who were worried that the ‘Rottweiler’ would harbour ancient grudges watched in amazement — and relief — as he turned into a virtual hermit. This created the factional chaos that led to his resignation — but right up until the end, Benedict was always ‘the Holy Father’.

    That title has almost dropped out of use inside the Vatican under Francis, at least in everyday conversation. And, when you hear it, there is an edge of sarcasm. For example: ‘As the Holy Father so wisely says, we all have a natural tendency to eat shit.’

    The priest in question is no fan of Francis. But the fact is that the Pope did say it — in public. Last month, he told the media to stop spreading fake stories because ‘people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia’. Which means eating excrement.

    Why did he say it? The traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli suggested that ‘ageing or an underlying medical issue’ was responsible for his ‘persistent anger, rancour, vituperation, use of uncouth words (which is known to be increasingly frequent in private)’.

    Again, this is an opponent speaking. There is no evidence that the Pope is mentally ill. However, plenty of Vatican employees will testify to his outbursts of temper, rudeness towards subordinates and vulgar language.

    He can also be genial, funny and compassionate. But this side of his personality is increasingly reserved for his inner circle and his allies.

    All popes have inner circles, it goes without saying. What distinguishes Francis from his recent predecessors is the nature of the alliances he forms. He is far more brutal in the exercise of his power than, say, Pope John Paul II, who certainly had an authoritarian streak in him.

    ‘Bergoglio divides the church into those who are with him and those who are against him — and if he thinks you’re in the latter camp then he’ll come after you,’ says a priest who works in the curia.

    Damian Thompson and Cristina Odone debate the successes and failures of Pope Francis

    ‘Bergoglio’, note: he doesn’t even call him ‘Francis’. Tellingly, this priest used to be a fervent supporter of some of the Pope’s administrative reforms and he doesn’t look back nostalgically at the reign of Benedict, whom he blames for neglecting his papal duties.

    But, like so many Vatican employees, he’s sick of Francis’s habit of telling the entire Roman curia that they are modern-day Pharisees — an analogy that casts the Argentinian pontiff in the role of Jesus.

    Clearly Francis believes that relaxing the rules on communion for Catholics in irregular marriages is an act of Christlike compassion. This is also the view of the venerable liberal cardinals who campaigned to elect him. It is often said that he is enacting their agenda — and it’s true that Francis is well disposed to liberal demands for women deacons and married priests.

    He is not, however, their instrument. In the words of a Vatican observer who held an important position in Rome for many years, ‘He hasn’t taken on the old progressive mantle so much as created his own personality cult.’ Theological niceties bore him. Personal loyalty obsesses him — ‘and if the cardinal electors had done due diligence they would have discovered that he was an extraordinarily divisive figure among the Argentinian Jesuits’.

    It’s not hard to detect a Latin American flavour to the deal-making and settling of scores that has become blatant over the past year. Most Catholic bishops had thought Francis was a plain-spoken and perhaps touchingly naive reformer. Instead, they are confronted by a pope who is simultaneously combative, charming, bad-tempered, idealistic and vengeful.

    Does that remind you of anyone? The Trump-Francis analogy has been doing the rounds in Rome for months, and not just among the Pope’s opponents.

    ‘It’s not meant entirely seriously,’ says a well-placed source. ‘No one is suggesting that Jorge Bergoglio is tempted by the same sins of the flesh as Donald Trump.

    ‘And there’s another difference. The Americans can kick out their old rogue after four years. Francis doesn’t have to stand for re-election by the conclave. Which, believe me, is lucky for him, because after the misery and nonsense of the past couple of years he’d be eliminated in the first ballot.’

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/why-more-and-more-priests-cant-stand-pope-francis/
     
    Clare A likes this.
  17. padraig

    padraig New Member

     
    Mac and Fatima like this.
  18. Carmel333

    Carmel333 Archangels

    The Church under the 1st Pope, Peter. Acts 5

    Ananias and Sapphira
    5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

    7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
     
    josephite likes this.
  19. josephite

    josephite Powers

    Thank you Carmel,
    In this scripture passage we see the ugliness of deception and also how our yes for yes and our no for no are necessary for truth !

    Deception is truly a grave sin in the eyes of God.

    The Holy Spirit working through St Peter shows how God will deal with those who try to decieve the Holy Father. Let us continue to pray that Our Holy Father will recieve the strength of the Holy Spirit to out those who are trying to decieve him Our Lords Vicar and Our Lords Church.
     
    Carmel333 likes this.
  20. Fatima

    Fatima Powers

    Our Yes for Yes, as well as our Holy Father's Yes for Yes for the truth is the same. Ambiguity or lack of clarification, adherence to Christ's teachings, Church teachings and past Papal teachings, in other words the unchanging moral teachings of the faith cannot be compromised with progressive words. A dabble of ambiguity mixed with allot of truth, still leads to error and sin. A pope is not above correction, as scripture and church history itself shows us. If Pope Francis' phone visit with a lady from Argentina discussing divorce or his confusing document opening the way for divorce and remarriage to the reception of the body and blood of Christ leads bishops and priests giving communion to the divorce and remarried without annulment, then this sacrilege will be upon him as well. I for one will stay with the clear unchanging moral teachings of Christ and his Church.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017

Share This Page