Very likely. Any guesses as to who will be his replacement? Maybe a woman - one of the Nuns for Choice crowd, or a lay equivalent? One of our former Presidents could be in the running. She has a theology degree, is a very prominent LGBT advocate and attended one of those peripheral meetings pre or mid Synod.
"In the end, it’s the clear-headed, simple Jewish woman who shows us that there’s no real clash between mercy and the high calling of the Christian moral life. This highlights the error of trying to drive a wedge between the two, such as through deploying ambiguous language that’s typical of the legalism which is characteristic of laxism. Mercy represents God’s willingness to forgive over and over again—the point being to give us the strength to resolve to go and sin no more. "Viewed from this perspective, reducing mercy to mere emotivism or transforming it into an excuse for mediocrity isn’t just a lie. These understandings of mercy demean our reason and wish away what the Dominican theologian Servais Pinckaers called the freedom for excellence to which man alone is called." http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4755/three_counterfeits_of_mercy.aspx
No I'm afraid I don't know anything more. My heart is troubled by the arguments seen on this thread. I personally believe that we the lay Catholic have a moral obligation to speak up when the faith handed down by our Lord through the apostles is being threatened, when there is heresy. I cannot help but wonder if we are in this situation now because the 3rd secret of Fatima was not released in 1960 as instructed by Mother Mary. Indeed when it was released in 2000, it was only natural to doubt that it was fully released because if it were truly such a mild secret, why was it not released by so many Popes in succession ? Then we have other messages like at La Salette, Garabandal and Akita that point to apostasy in the Church beginning at the top of the hierarchy. Let us not be afraid to defend our faith.
"As for the Secret, well I happen to be one of those individuals who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing. I told ya! I mean, you have the right to your own opinion, don’t you, Father? There, you know, that’s my opinion. Because I think it’s scary. And I don’t think the Holy See is going to say something that does not happen, that might happen. And then what does it do if it doesn’t happen? I mean the Holy See cannot afford to make prophecies, because. I know, — I don’t know — my funeral . . . It’s not me, so don’t look at me . . . Something’s gonna happen soon. It could be twenty years before it happens. So to God “soon” could be a thousand years. We don’t know that." - Mother Angelica live television show of May 16, 2001
I wish I knew but they'll be easy to mold regardless. Maybe it will be decided that this new church doesn't need a CDF?
Any way , just wondering who has focused their prayer on the Small farmer this month?? Has Mark Mallett or Charlie J or anyone here started a thread or shown concern about the plight of the small farmer? After all this was last months prayer effort. Cant wait for the new one out any day now.
Have any of you been reading what Mark Mallett has been writing lately? http://www.markmallett.com/blog/the-centre/ For osmeone who has all along been so much a defender of the Holy Father's rathe ambigious statements in the past what he is writing here is really quite startling. Well at least for me , quite startling. A for instance: THE LISTING BARQUE During the course of Pope Francis’ papacy, many readers know that I have defended the Holy Father’s more ambiguous statements, usually made in casual interviews, without harm to the Faith. That is, I have taken what are seemingly unorthodox statements and explained them in the only way we should: in light of Sacred Tradition. Recently, Cardinal Raymond Burke reaffirmed this approach to papal statements, including the most recent Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching. —Cardinal Raymond Burke, National Catholic Register, April 12th, 2016; ncregister.com This is extremely important, because what is being said here is that the center of truth does not and cannot change. Jesus said, “I am the truth”—He, who is eternal, does not change. Thus, the truths of the natural moral law are immutable, because they spring from the very nature of God, of the communion of Persons in the Holy Trinity, and the revelations pertaining to how God created mankind in relation to Himself, one another, and creation. Thus, not even a pope can change the Public Revelation of Jesus Christ, what we call “Sacred Tradition.” Which is why the following statement in the Exhortation is also an important key to its interpretation: I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. —POPE FRANCIS, Amoris Laetitia, n. 3; www.vatican.va That is to say that the Exhortation, while offering valuable and helpful reflections on family life, is a blend of both the pope’s personal non-magisterial ideas as well as reinforcement of Church teaching. That is to say, there is no change in doctrine—a testament that the Chair of Peter is rock (see The Chair of Rock). But it is also, at times, a stumbling stone. Since the release of the Exhortation, there have been plenty of commentaries, including Cardinal Burke’s, that point out troubling ambiguities in the document when it comes to the pastoral application of Church teaching. In fact, brothers and sisters, some ambiguities simply cannot pass through the “key” of Sacred Tradition without being rejected altogether. And this is really a startling moment for our generation as we have been blessed with fairly unambiguous papal instruction for a very long time. And now, we are faced with a “family crisis” where many good, faithful defenders of Catholicism find themselves in disagreement with the Pope. But here too is a test: will we face these disagreements by abandoning the Barque of Peter, as did Martin Luther? Will we separate from Rome as the St. Pius X Society did? Or will we, like Paul, approach the Holy Father with these ambiguities in a spirit of truth and love in what I call a “Peter and Paul moment”, when Paul corrected the first pope—not for a doctrinal error—but for creating a scandal in his pastoral approach: …when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. (Galatians 2:11) Here, we have another key: Paul remained at the center of truth by both holding fast to the immutable truth, while at the same time remaining in communion with the pope. Brothers and sisters, I am not downplaying the possible harm and scandal these ambiguities could create. Some have even suggested that this may cause a schism in the Church. [9] But that depends on what the clergy will do with Amoris Laetitia. If suddenly bishops, if not entire conferences of bishops, begin to apply this Exhortation in ways that are a break from Sacred Tradition, then I suggest that these men had already begun, in some fashion, to break away from the sure and clear norms of the Catholic Church. This is to say that the Holy Spirit, who has been sent to lead the Church into all truth, may very well have permitted all of this in order to purify and prune the Body of Christ of the dead branches. Quoting again Cardinal Raymond Burke, whose commentary is perhaps the best I’ve read on Amoris Laetitia, he says: How, then, is the document to be received? First of all, it should be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman pontiff as the Vicar of Christ, in the words of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of both the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium, 23). Certain commentators confuse such respect with a supposed obligation to “believe with divine and Catholic faith” (Canon 750, § 1) everything contained in the document. But the Catholic Church, while insisting on the respect owed to the Petrine office as instituted by Our Lord himself, has never held that every utterance of the Successor of St. Peter should be received as part of her infallible magisterium. —Cardinal Raymond Burke, National Catholic Register, April 12th, 2016; ncregister.com And so, I will repeat what I have said countless times in other writings. Remain in communion with the Pope, but faithful to Jesus Christ, which is faithfulness to Sacred Tradition. Jesus is still the one building the Church, and my faith is in Him that He will never, ever abandon His bride. The post Pentecost Peter… is that same Peter who, for fear of the Jews, belied his Christian freedom (Galatians 2 11–14); he is at once a rock and a stumbling-block. And has it not been thus throughout the history of the Church that the Pope, the successor of Peter, has been at once Petra and Skandalon—both the rock of God and a stumbling block? —POPE BENEDICT XIV, from Das neue Volk Gottes, p. 80ff RETURNING TO THE CENTER If Jesus compared listening to His words and acting upon them as one who builds his house on rock, then dear brother and sister, do everything you can to be faithful to every word of Christ. Return to the center of truth. Return to everything that Jesus has bequeathed to the Church, to “every spiritual blessing in the heavens” [10] intended for our edification, encouragement and strength. That is, the sure apostolic teachings of the Faith, as outlined in the Catechism; the charisms of the Holy Spirit, including tongues, healing, and prophecy; the Sacraments, especially Confession and the Eucharist; proper respect and expression of the Church’s universal prayer, the Liturgy; and the Great Commandment to love God and one’s neighbour. The Church, in many quarters, has drifted from its center, and the fruit of this is division. And what a divided mess is it! There are those Catholics who serve the poor, but neglect to feed the spiritual food of the Faith. There are Catholics who hold fast to the ancient forms of Liturgy, while rejecting the charisms of the Holy Spirit. [11] There are “charismatic” Christians who reject the rich heritage of our liturgical and private devotions. There are theologians who teach the Word of God but reject the Mother who carried Him; apologists who defend the Word but despise the words of prophecy and so-called “private revelation.” There are those who come to Mass every Sunday, but pick and choose the moral teachings they’ll live between Monday and Saturday.
My attention was at once drawn to Mark using the revealing prhrase, 'Listing Barque'. ..and so at once indicating that there realy is a problem here. That it is not just in peoples minds but that there are problems with na objective realy not just a subjective apprehension. I like this so much , because having accepted that there are problems we cna move from there to define them and then from there move on to deal with them. I noticed that many people o nthe forum appeared to be suggesting that everything in the Garden if just Rosy. But that is very much not the case. He oges on to write: 'And this is really a startling moment for our generation as we have been blessed with fairly unambiguous papal instruction for a very long time. And now, we are faced with a “family crisis” where many good, faithful defenders of Catholicism find themselves in disagreement with the Pope.' So setting this current Pontiff apart from other more recnt previous ones. Mark is accepting that Pope Francis's utterances can be ' Ambiguous' . I admit my mouth dropped open a bit at this. I never thought mark might have gone so dwon teh orad as this, to directly point the finger at the holy Father. Though I am delighted he has done so of course.. But of course as Mark writes, we must not be tempted by Schism and must remain in communion with Rome. That much is obvious. But it is also so clear that the days of being an ostrich and sticking our collective heads in the sand and pretending everything in garden is just rosy are very,very rapidly drawing to an end. There are grave probems here that need addressing, not ignoring in the name of false notions of, 'loyalty' and false notions of, 'obedience'.
From my point of view, Mark Mallett speaks to the issue with truth, love and grace, unlike what we often see here on MOG forum. Mark respects our Holy Father and calls fidelity to him and his office, while others on MOG have called him a heretic. Long before Pope Francis exhortation came out, there has been a few on this forum that have always showed their contempt for him. They gave no pretense to giving him the benefit of the doubt in any exchange of words. They can only comment on his 'questionable' comments and give no credence to his multiple other words of love and sound faith that he has given on many occasions. Here in, is why Mark deserves the respect due for bringing sound advise on AL. He speaks with love, not hatred towards the Vicar of Christ and when he cannot reconcile some of his words he brings it to prayer and cautious words as should be. Unlike some on MOG, he shows no hatred towards Pope Francis.
+ Thank you for bringing this prayer effort up Mac. I am a small farmer and prayers for all small farmers (as well as agriculture in general) are much needed for those who work countless hours with little pay to see that all of us can eat. May God Bless you Mac and all that you do in His name. Peace, Ed
I'll see if I can find out any more about them. I'm guessing that they are trying to mobilise enough lay Catholics to make the Pope pay attention to the Bishops questioning the Exhortation. I may well have to hold my nose while I rejoin PayPal to make a donation. Our Lady didn't request that the secret be released in 1960. That was Lucy's decision. Reading the secret on the EWTN website, I can understand why it wasn't released. There's nothing mild about the vision of a Pope and numerous bishops and laypersons being killed. The assassination attempt on St. John Paul made it possible for him to release the secret without causing panic, but I sometimes wonder whether it matches what she saw. Lucy said that it was for the Church and not her to interpret the vision. Our Lady didn't ask the Church to publish its interpretation of the vision. There could be more than one interpretation. By choosing to release only one interpretation, the Church didn't disobey Our Lady. Reading the interpretation on the EWTN website, I think that matching it to the vision is a bit of a stretch https://www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/Third_Secret/Fatima.htm Then again, sometimes we expect Heaven to dot all the i's and cross all the t's much like St. Thomas needing to put his hand into the wounds of Jesus. We Catholics have always taken it for granted that when the Great Apostasy happens there will be a type of visible good ship with all the good Catholics (the remnant) inside and all the apostates outside. Reading comments from people like Bishop Schneider and Mark Mallet, I'm coming to the conclusion that it won't be a simple as that. Sure, the remnant will be inside the good ship (barque of Peter) but I wouldn't be so sure that they will be all alone, otherwise how could even some of the elect be deceived. Not being a biblical scholar, I could well be wrong but there's no timeline in the bible for the False Prophet. I don't think it says that he will show up and give a few charismatic speeches that draw millions into apostasy within a few years. That would make the False Prophet and ultimately the AntiChrist too easy to spot, and Satan doesn't work like that. Cardinal Kasper is getting all the flak for this confusion. Cardinal Schonborn worries me more. He has been at the heart of the Church for the three papacies that have led us to this situation. Cardinal Kasper talked and wrote books about his beliefs. Cardinal Schonborn managed to do what Cardinal Kasper was proposing without attracting any flak. A brilliant theologian, a skilled diplomat and linguist, Cardinal Schonborn has been touted as a future Pope. God help us.
Heresy is a manifest and obdurate denial of a solemnly defined Church teaching. (more or less; see CCC, para. 2089) If anyone said this they were wrong as far as church teaching goes. On the other hand, defending the Faith is not showing contempt, hatred or constitutes an attack. This will become more clear with time.
Fatima, I have real trouble reconciling the Pope Francis of 2013 who declared that the Church is not just another NGO https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...ble-agencies-that-dont-preach-christ-are-dead with the Pope Francis who declared an anti-Catholic activist and abortionist to be a forgotten great, the Pope Francis who, with the whole world watching him, stood in front of the UN and the US Congress and passed on the opportunity to denounce their practice of linking aid to abortion and contraception, through to using the Vatican as a backdrop for the animistic light show, various strategically timed supposed impromptu comments and phone calls, culminating in this Exhortation that sanctions Communion for people in all sorts of irregular sexual unions, not to mention what Synodality will bring. This piece, written last year, about the German Church explains a lot http://www.synodwatch.com/the-churchs-potential-german-problems/ I reckon that Cardinal Marx won't get the smell of many sheep in his BMW, but he got what he wanted at the Synod. Looks like money talks even in a poor Church for the poor.
There is a two edged coin here. On the one hand , true there have been people with an agenda, seeing the Holy Father as the anit Chirst, False Pope etc, though they did not come right out and say it. I put to of thes eindividuals off the forum, aviso and Basto when i was sure this was in fact the case. If I find others with the same aganda I will put them too of the forum. But there is another side to this coin which is equally exteme and equally wrong. THose who believe that asking any questions presupposes that those who ask such questions are evil and o nthe road to hell. This, in my view is equally reprehensible and to be condemned. I walk between the two extremes here and am condemned by both. But you can;t please everyone. I can advise that generally if someone has a different opinion than ourselves not to jump to the conclusion thaat they are evill and going to hell ect but that they are well meaning, if, in our view mistaken.We are all God's CHidlren. Comparing this website to mark Amllets is inequitable. Mark is writing on his won and expressing his won personal opinions. This, Our Lady's website gives voice to many , may different individuals, so of course the voice will be different, the voice of many not the voice of one. I think this debate reminds me of the debate in the GOP in America as regards, say, Trump and Cruz. There is a lack of calm a lack of peace. A lack of being open to the goodwil lof those who disagree with us. we need to be tolerant, we need ot be chairtable, we need ot think the best of those who we disagree with. if it is not written in Charity it is all just so much hot air.
By the way I get nasty uncharitable emails from both sides of the divide. Both sides accusing me of being partisan. I could care less. Its bound to be this way in a highly charged situation. we need to decharge it through prayer. and much charity.
