None of this Thread should come as a surprise to anyone ... at least anyone who remembers pre-Vatican II. We allowed "agents" to Sow the Wind these past 50 years and now we have the Whirlwind .... same-same for our US/EU Societies. Smart people, religious/secular, have been warning about what we are seeing now all those 50 years. So ... Patriots and/or People of Faith ... it's Time!!! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
FYI: Former MOG member "Smudger" was the subject of this essay by canonist Ed Peters, if you thought his views might have had merit. https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/...-canon-915-is-not-such-a-good-idea-after-all/ Maybe ‘adjusting’ Canon 915 is not such a good idea after all The chief problem with electronic publishing is that writers and editors, no longer limited by the physical capacity of pages to contain words, now crank out copy with abandon. Stephan Walford’s +5,000 word editorial on Amoris laetitia contains, I suggest, numerous incomplete and misleading comments on a wide variety of complex and controversial topics, but responding to them in anything like completeness is simply impossible. So, I’ll do what I can here on the chance it helps someone out there and go on to my next project. I begin, however, by wasting a few words of my own and ask: why do Walford and/or Vatican Insider think it important to note that Walford is “a pianist and teacher”? How does Walford’s being “a pianist” make his thoughts on Amoris presumably more worth reading? I’m a clarinetist. Are my thoughts on Amoris more (or less?) valuable for that? And why point out that Walford is “a teacher” without mentioning what he teaches or to whom? Does simply being “a teacher” qualify one to opine at great length on whatever topic one chooses to discuss? But enough musing. To provide responses to even some of Walford’s incomplete and misleading comments on the numerous canonical, moral, and sacramental issues he purports to address is not possible without my first providing a mini-tutorial in each of these areas—and I decline to do that if only out of respect for the depth study that is actually required to appreciate the Church’s deep wisdom in these matters. Still, those bringing such backgrounds to this debate will, I trust, recognize, for example, that (1) Seper, unusually for his generation, might have mis-presented what the “internal forum solution” required, but Hamer’s ‘clarification’ of Seper’s comment clearly reasserted the traditional understanding, an understanding that obtained in ecclesiastical governing circles until just a couple years ago; (2) anything an ecclesiastic speaking carefully says about “conjugal chastity” has virtually no bearing on the analysis of the non-conjugal sex engaged in by non-married persons; (3) conscience cases over the use of contraception deal with canonically “occult” sin while Communion cases among divorced-and-remarried Catholics deal with canonically “manifest” sin, different situations requiring different responses; (4) a “homosexual orientation” might be a personal state but being divorced and remarried is a public status, which distinction would trigger different kinds of analysis; (5) while Pope Francis “has not changed in the slightest the teaching on mortal sin” he has arguably misapplied that teaching, or has allowed it to be misapplied by others, to a situation wherein it simply does not apply (Canon 915); and so on and so on. Walford makes a few startling assertions of his own (such as claiming that “a priest who discerns and guides a penitent can discern the situation and amount of subjective guilt, thus they are aware if mortal sin is present or not” !), but the above should suffice to show that Walford’s comments are liable to more than quibbling rebuttals. I recognize, of course, that Walford (unlike most other non-canonists writing on Amoris) has made some efforts to look at how today’s questions were framed in the past but I suggest that he does not bring sufficient awareness of what those terms and phrases meant to professionals in their day so as to convey sufficiently how they need to be understood by pastors in ours. That said, Walford makes one comment in passing that is illustrative, I think, of the dangers to which amateurs’ suggestions about law are prone. Walford says, “I accept that canon 915 may need adjusting if the Holy Father sees fit …” Oh, really? Canon 915 “may need adjusting”, may need changes in its wording, I take this to mean. Alright, let’s think about that. Canon 915, as has been explained many times, restricts the basic right of the Christian faithful to receive holy Communion. Like all restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights, the terms of Canon 915 must be read ‘strictly’ so as not to curtail illegally the rights of the faithful. Every one of the five qualifiers in Canon 915—obstinacy, perseverance, manifest-ness, gravity, and sinfulness, as those precisely refined terms have been used by the canonico-moral tradition (and not necessarily as non-specialists might understand them)—must be satisfied before holy Communion can and must be withheld from a member of the faithful. Remove any, let alone several, of the qualifiers from the criteria set out in Canon 915 and, as a matter of law, the restrictions on access to holy Communion expand, not contract. So which word or words, one wonders, might Walford like to see changed in Canon 915? If we drop, say, the word “sin” from Canon 915, we would authorize ministers to withhold holy Communion from would-be communicants whose, say, mannerisms or attitudes irritate us. If we drop the word “grave” from the law, then those in light or common sin need also to be rejected. If we drop the word “manifest”, then even occult sinners (a concept Walford blurred above) would have to be publically banned from holy Communion. If we drop the notion of “perseverance”, then those in one-time or occasional sin must be prevented by ministers from taking holy Communion. And if we do not care whether public sinners have actual or construed knowledge of the wrongness of their conduct, we could eliminate the word “obstinate” from the law. Which of those adjustments to Canon 915 might Walford support? I hope, none. But perhaps Wolford has in mind not changing Canon 915 (so much for his call to “adjust” the law) but rather, effectively supports repealing CCC 2384 and the tradition behind it such that post-divorce civil remarriage is no longer understood as “permanent and public adultery” (and thus is not a sin, and thus Canon 915 does not apply). I trust it is obvious, though, that this approach strikes not at sacramental discipline as reflected in Canon 915 but at the sacramental doctrine being protected by the canon. Such a proposal, in any case, would need to go to someone higher in the Church than a blogging canon lawyer. In sum, Canon 915 summarizes many centuries of ministerial reflection on doctrine and pastoral practice. That accumulated wisdom is not available to ministers and faithful, though, if its terms, singly and in combination, are subject to tweaking by people who seem inadequately to understand them and who seem to appreciate only in part what lies behind them. All this, in one-fifth of Walford’s word count.
Also made me think of the part of the Third Secret of Fatima that HAS been revealed....the vision given about the Pope (assumed by the children as the "Bishop in white") climbing the hill where there awaited the cross and he was killed ("after you have reached the top of the mountain, as the Cross is lifted up, all will be shaken, and the Church will lay down Her aspect of a dying one")!
At the same time, it also echoes the Locutions message about the Pope's assassination, and what results afterwards.
There is also something that I believe must be brought up. It appears that Pope Francis has taken on the satanic Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment of life" philosophy. Pure apostasy.
Not so long ago I would have "written-off" the below as in the league of UFOs and Little Green Men but .... these days!?? ... and the "goings-on" since PB resigned .... and WikiLeaks about a USA counter Catholic "Catholic" Organization organized by John Podesta and funded by Geo. Soros .........!!!??? "A Vatican-Democratic Party Alliance? (Catholics Ask Trump Administration to Investigate)" http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web...olics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
Another interview and more confusion and division! "Pope Francis: "Liberation Theology Was Good for Latin America" http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...rancis-liberation-theology-good-latin-america GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
Pope St John Paul2 who lied under Marxism in his native Poland must be not so much turning in his grave as twirling in his grave.
Posting that article in full here: Pope Francis: ‘Liberation Theology Was Good for Latin America’ by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.27 Jan 2017207 In a controversial interview, Pope Francis has publicly defended Liberation Theology, calling it a “positive thing” in Latin America. In his lengthy interview last week with the leftist Spanish daily El País, the Pope said that “Liberation Theology was a good thing for Latin America,” but also recognized that it had “deviations” that needed to be corrected. The part of Liberation Theology that “opted for a Marxist analysis of reality was condemned by the Vatican,” Francis said. “Cardinal Ratzinger issued two instructions when he was Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith,” he continued. “One very clear one about the Marxist analysis of reality, and the second picked up positive aspects.” “Liberation Theology had positive aspects and also had deviations, especially in the part of the Marxist analysis of reality,” he said. The two Vatican documents cited by the pontiff were Libertatis Nuntius, issued in 1984, and Libertatis Conscientia, released just two years later, in 1986. Libertatis Nuntius addressed “developments of that current of thought which, under the name ‘theology of liberation,’ proposes a novel interpretation of both the content of faith and of Christian existence which seriously departs from the faith of the Church and, in fact, actually constitutes a practical negation.” “Concepts uncritically borrowed from Marxist ideology and recourse to theses of a biblical hermeneutic marked by rationalism are at the basis of the new interpretation which is corrupting whatever was authentic in the generous initial commitment on behalf of the poor,” the instruction continues. The document also noted that in “certain parts of Latin America,” the recognition of injustice “is accompanied by a pathos which borrows its language from Marxism, wrongly presented as though it were scientific language.” The letter also said that certain Christians, despairing of every other method, turned to a Marxist analysis, “especially in Latin America.” The 1986 text was issued as a complement to the first one, and sought to “highlight the main elements of the Christian doctrine on freedom and liberation” as a corrective to the errors of Liberation Theology brought out by the prior instruction. In a striking revelation in 2015, the highest ranking Cold War defector asserted that the KGB had created Liberation Theology, exporting it to Latin America as a means of introducing Marxism into the continent. Ion Mihai Pacepa, a 3-star general and former head of Communist Romania’s secret police who defected to the United States in 1978, has been called “the Cold War’s most important defector.” During the more than ten years that Pacepa worked with the CIA, he made what the agency described as “an important and unique contribution to the United States.” He is reported in fact to have given the CIA “the best intelligence ever obtained on communist intelligence networks and internal security services.” “Liberation theology has been generally understood to be a marriage of Marxism and Christianity. What has not been understood is that it was not the product of Christians who pursued Communism, but of Communists who pursued Christians,” Pacepa said. In his role as doctrinal watchdog, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger referred to Liberation Theology as a “singular heresy” and a “fundamental threat” to the Church.
I heard that St Malachi said the last Pope will be completely under the control of Satan. Is Francis the last Pope ??? Also as uneducated as I am in comparison to the many scholars here, for the life of me I cannot understand how a good chunk of the clergy from the ground up to the Pope are not taking the word of God and the messages from approved apparitions of the Blessed Mother telling us of these terrible things that are happening in the Church and what will happen if it continues. Is the Pope not informed do the clergy that take part not shaken by the results of their actions, do they not realise they are selling their souls. Really do they NOT BELIEVE. Denying us the 3rd secret of Fatima also totally disobeying our Mother even to this day not one Pope has been brave enough to do what was asked of them. I truly believe we would not be where we are now with the Lord if the secret was released as requested. And then Pope John Paul whom i loved to say people only want to know to satisfy curiosities i felt was another slap in the face, the message was for the world to save us from ourselves. We are in the worst state possible with God so what do we do. Do we obey our superiors as we are meant to do or do we rally against them, I know you will suggest prayer but along with prayer do we not act and stick to the real Church, which means ignoring a lot of what's being told and asked of us now giving disregard to the Pope.
I thought this was very good: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201..._of_congregation_for_consecrated_life/1288858
If liberation theology was good why did Popes John Paul and Benedict considered it a great threat and vigorously fought it? Who is right? The current Pope or his two predecessors? More confusion...
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. LIBERATION THEOLOGY. A movement in the Roman Catholic Church that makes criticism of oppression essential to the task of theology. The forms of oppression to be criticized are mainly social and economic evils. Originating in Latin America, liberation theology has held as its main concern the exploitation of the poor, but it also seeks to defend the rights of minority and ethnic groups and to support women's liberation. It is, therefore, a theory of deliverance from the injustices caused to people by the power structures of modern society. It is a new approach to theology, and its leaders urge a reinterpretation of the Christian faith to concentrate on the main task of the Church today, to deliver people everywhere from the inhumanity to which they are being subjected, especially by those in political power. Accordingly all the main doctrines of historic Christianity are to be reassessed and, if need be, revised. Christ becomes an inspired human deliverer of the weak and oppressed; God's kingdom centers on this world, and not on the next; sin is essentially social evil and not an offense against God; the Church's mission is mainly sociopolitical and not eschatological; and objective divine revelation is subordinated to personal experience. Aware of both the potential and risks of liberation theology, Pope John Paul II addressed himself mainly to this subject on his visit to Mexico in early 1979. He told the bishops of Latin America, met at Puebla for their General Conference: "The Church feels the duty to proclaim the liberation of millions of human beings, the duty to help this liberation become firmly established." At the same time, ". . . she also feels the corresponding duty to proclaim liberation in its integral and profound meaning, as Jesus proclaimed and realized it." Then, drawing on Pope Paul VI's teaching, he declared that it is "above all, liberation from sin and the evil one, in the joy of knowing God and being known by him." The Pope finally set down the norms "that help to distinguish when the liberation in question is Christian and when on the other hand it is based rather on ideologies that rob it of consistency with an evangelical point of view." Basically these norms refer to the content "of what the evangelizers proclaim" and to "the concrete attitudes that they adopt." On the level of content, "one must see what is their fidelity to the word of God, to the Church's living Tradition and to her Magisterium." On the level of attitudes, "one must consider what sense of communion they have with the bishops, in the first place, and with the other sectors of the People of God; what contribution they make to the real building up of the community; in what form they lovingly show care for the poor, the sick, the dispossessed, the neglected and the oppressed, and in what way they find in them the image of the poor and suffering Jesus, and strive to relieve their need and serve Christ in them" (address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate, January 28, 1979)
Another "great" (by the Pope's standards) who can't be forgotten fast enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich Here's a video of him expounding on his theories last year. His self-aggrandisement and denigration of everyone who isn't of his mindset is hard to bear, so if you skip to the 56:30 mark you will get to the question and answer session where he gives his opinion of the Catholic Church. When someone in the audience said that all his predictions to date had been wrong, he couldn't come up with a credible answer. When a later questioner asked him about the UN, he launched into another attack on the Catholic Church - the Church and not Catholics who he maintains are out of line with the Church and he points out that some Catholics have set about changing that. He is a fan of Pope Francis, separating the Pope from the Church. A look at his twitter page will give a flavour of his politics and the types of people he considers worth paying attention to such as Planned Parenhood and George Soros. https://twitter.com/PaulREhrlich The likes of that repulsive creature being given a platform in the Vatican is yet another sign that something is seriously amiss in the leadership of our Church. The writing is on the wall and a Catholic would have to be blind not to see the serious trouble the Church is in. I fear very much that Padraig's assessment is accurate. The way things are going, Pope Francis being a mere heretic could be the least of our troubles.
The real "skeleton" in the pope's closet may be his impassioned stance on climate change. I recently watched an anti-catholic youtube video (can't find it) that basically reviews the incredible scope that this pope has put into this position. Different church organizations all over the world, an encyclical, teaching of climate-deniers as sinful, speech at the United Nations, acquiescence to the globalists on this issue is the real "elephant in the room." He has handed over everything that is catholic to people of George Soros ilk to promote this heresy, my words. Oh, oh, does that mean the axe of mercy of Pope Francis is going to fall on my head now? He has even gone so far as to promote Bernadin's seamless garment theory to cover these satanists by elevating global warming and demoting abortion and homosexuality and all the other things they stand for. He was personally slapped by catholics in the US by them voting for Donald Trump 52%-48% over Hildebeast Clinton, the globalists stooge on global warming. If he is wrong on global warming he has put the entire authority of catholicism behind it. Can someone please explain to me how this would not be an error on faith and morals?
