Why Are We Surprised (Or Discouraged)? Spirit Daily take: https://spiritdaily.org/blog/news/why-are-we-surprised
I watched the following episode last night, it's very well done as usual. The Papal Posse brought up something that I thought of also, this October's Youth Synod and in regard to all that is occurring as of late they suggested that it not take place until things are a bit more settled. They also suggested the same of the World Meeting of Families scheduled for this month in Dublin. I just came across the following article which does not reiterate the same exact opinion of the Papal Posse but they make a very good point. I realize that Cardinal Farrell's reaction to the allegations against Cardinal McCarrick have already been discussed on the forum but I didn't realize that Cardinal Farrell is in charge of the Youth Synod in October or that he was the one responsible for inviting Father James Martin to speak at the World Meeting of Families in August. What a mess! Cardinal Farrell MUST Be Sacked From Youth Synod Immediately… https://catholictruthblog.com/2018/...-must-be-sacked-from-youth-synod-immediately/ July 31, 2018 By editorin Bishops, Canon Law, Conscience, Fatima, Homosexuality, Morals, Pope Francis, Scotland, sin, Uncategorized, United States of America, Youth SynodTags: cardinal kevin farrell, cardinal theodore mccarrick, usa36 Comments American Cardinal McCarrick’s resignation, house-arrest and forthcoming canonical trial following allegations of child sexual abuse has hit the headlines the world over. Click here to read one of the many reports… Not quite so well known, however is the fact that McCarrick’s long time friend, who shared a home with him for six years, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, is the person in charge of the Youth Synod. Guilt by association, of course, is unjust. However, watch his performance in this short video report and then read the comments from YouTube, some of which are copied below, for ease of reference. Then ask yourself – would YOU want this man in any kind of position where he can influence any child of yours, with his upside down view of the role of young people in the Church? He doesn’t see them as requiring the teaching and guidance of the Church – he thinks these uncatechised young people should be running the Church! We’ve a bishop here in Scotland who thinks the same – if you recall, not so long ago, we discussed this same ambition of the Bishop of Paisley (John Keenan) to hand his diocese over to his uncatechised youth. Seems to be catching on – can’t wait for the polling on that one in a year or two… [emphasis added] Watch the clip below, where he reacts to the “news” (not likely news to him) of Cardinal McCarrick’s credibly alleged sordid behaviour, the consequences of which are now coming home to roost. Then check if your own thoughts chime with the YouTube commentators below. Comments from those who watched the video on YouTube… to read all comments click here …Will Farrell denounce the actions of McCarrick? Where is that? …Not buying it at all. This Cardinal Farrell was the guy who invited weirdo homosexualist priest Father James Martin to speak at the World Meeting of Families in Ireland. Why would they want to turn the World Meeting of Families into a big gay pride parade? This guy is behind having this stuff at the Ireland meeting and should never have been made a Cardinal. This clown also said that priests have nothing to offer when it comes to preparing people for marriage. He is a disgrace to the church. [emphasis added] …Haul this guy into court and have him testify under oath …Cardinal, as you can see from the comments below, no one believes one word you say about this. You’re only adding to the shame the Church must shoulder because of the acts of the mitered d!@+ bag McCarrick. We in the pews are sick of pious lies of the kind we hear in this interview. [I modified the expletive] …Translation: “I lived with a pedo for many years and never noticed anything odd!” If true, this just tells us that Farrell is a very naive and unintelligent man. And that’s probably the best scenario we can hope for. His choice of words also make him suspect. A person with a properly formed conscience in this case would use words like “disgusting,” “repugnant,” and “despicable.” Instead he’s just talking about himself and how “overwhelmed” he is. Not convincing. …I don’t believe him at all …I don’t believe this. Sorry. Total liar. They know very well what’s going on. Sickening… totally sickening. …He seems to care only about himself, not for any victims. This is so disheartening as a Catholic. …Play at slower speed to hear that I am recording this accurately. 0:53 And I was involved 0:58 heavily involved in Washington, 1:00 ahh in the whole … from 2000 on 1:06 in the sex abuse 1:09 ammm 1:12 so I really 1:16 don’t have any knowledge or ‘anyting’ to add about 1:20 more then that [emphasis added and fixed comment] …If this “interview “ was supposed to help Cardinal Farrell it totally backfired. “I, I, I, I, I, I…” Any sense of shame, indignation and compassion for the terrible damage done to others? I don’t think so. He’s just thinking about how to get out of this. …“…heavily involved”… “in the sex abuse…”… hmmm. Anyone else think that’s a “strange” remark? Notice he did not say sex abuse SCANDAL!?! [emphasis added and this should be read right after the comment I bolded above. I am not accusing him of anything, I just find this to be so very eerie.] …Utter rubbish. Every priest in the Archdiocese had heard about this. …What was the question? Is he saying he’s only “shocked” to hear Cardinal McCarrick preyed on minors? Or is he shocked by all the accusations, including that Cardinal McCarrick was an active homosexual? Because Cardinal Farrell lived with Cardinal McCarrick for several years, during a time when “everyone know” (including several journalists) about McCarrick’s behavior. Of course, the obvious answer is that of course Cardinal Farrell knew and that he should be taken down by all this too. …No sense of being indignant by the accusations against McCarrick. No sense of shame, or caring for the victims. This man is typical of why the sex scandal went on for so long. … he looks like he’s hiding something. His gaze looks more like “I dare you to find something on me” rather than one of contrition. A normal human would say something like “I WISH I had heard something so I could have stopped the abuse” or “I was shocked…McCarrick played us all for fools”, but his comments are entirely defensive and self-centered. If Cardinal Farrell won’t stick up for us lay people and our kids, which bishop will?
Might this be proof of St. Francis of Assisi's prophecy of a future pope? Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows? July 31, 2018 (Steven O’Reilly) – This blog post is an update and expansion of one I first did in August of 2017, nearly a year ago. Knowing something of Jesuits and the Jesuit order; I know Jesuits profess a number of vows. A couple of these would appear on their face to be an obstacle – or at least a speed bump – for a Jesuit to become a pope, unless the obligation of these vows were dispensed by the proper authority. Here I am thinking of the following Jesuit vows (emphasis added): “I also promise that I will never strive for or ambition any prelacy or dignity outside the Society; and I will to the best of my ability never consent to my election unless I am forced to do so by obedience to him who can order me under penalty of sin.” (see here) Therefore, looking at the election of Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., to the papacy in the 2013 conclave and wondering who forced him to accept (i.e., to ‘consent to his election‘) the papacy by obedience, I asked a simple question: who dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows? But, before proceeding to examine the question anew, I want to make clear I am not one prone to conspiratorial plots regarding Pope Francis or the conclave that elected him. I have rejected and rebutted the “Benedict is still pope” theory a number of times in a number of ways (see Thoughts on Free Will and Hypothetical Papal Plots and Benedict is NOT pope and Benedict is STILL not Pope and A Filial Correction of those who believe Benedict is still Pope?). I believe the “Benedict is still pope” theory to be utterly absurd – and adherents to it to be barking up the wrong tree. I am not in the conspiracy business. I am just curious. As a former intelligence officer, I do not like loose ends. But, sometimes, when you tug at loose ends, the thread keeps coming out as one pulls at it. I had hoped the August 2017 article might generate some answers to my question, but things seem to have only gotten “curiouser and curiouser” (NB: I still invite feedback and will protect anonymity of responders as requested). Let us review some background that explains my puzzlement. I have already quoted the Jesuit vow in question, and now provide additional background from this Wikipedia quote from an article on Jesuit Formation (emphasis added): “The professed of the Four Vows take, in addition to these solemn perpetual vows five additional Simple Vows: not to consent to any mitigation of the Society’s observance of poverty; not to “ambition” or seek any prelacies (ecclesiastical offices) outside the Society; not to ambition any offices within the Society; a commitment to report any Jesuit who does so ambition; and, if a Jesuit does become a bishop, to permit the general to continue to provide advice to that bishop, though the vow of obedience to Jesuit superiors is not operative over matters the man undertakes as bishop. Under these vows, no Jesuit may “campaign” or even offer his name for appointment or election to any office, and if chosen for one must remind the appointing authority (even the Pope) of these Vows—if the Pope commands that the Jesuit accept ordination as a bishop anyway, the Jesuit must keep an open ear to the Jesuit general as an influence.” (Jesuit Formation. Wikipedia) Further, of these vows, the late Fr. John Hardon, S.J., wrote the following (emphasis added): “The third vow besides the solemn vow is to never seek or accept unless under formal obedience and pain of mortal sin from the Pope, any dignity in the Church: we are forbidden under pain of mortal sin to become bishops. And the fourth vow to protect the third – we are bound under sin to resist every effort to advance us in the Church.” (History of Religious Life: St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Society of Jesus, by Father John A. Hardon, S.J.) The citations above demonstrate that a fully professed Jesuit vows to “never seek or accept unless under formal obedience and pain of mortal sin from the Pope, any dignity in the Church” and they are “are bound under sin to resist every effort to advance” them in the Church. Given the above, the question of Jesuit vows and papal elections is an interesting one. St. Thomas Aquinas took up the question of vows in the Summa Theologica as to whether one is bound to a vow (emphasis added): The obligation of a vow is caused by our own will and intention, wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 23:23): “That which is once gone out of thy lips, thou shalt observe, and shalt do as thou hast promised to the Lord thy God, and hast spoken with thy own will and with thy own mouth.” Wherefore if in taking a vow, it is one’s intention and will to bind oneself to fulfil it at once, one is bound to fulfil it immediately. But if one intend to fulfil it at a certain time, or under a certain condition, one is not bound to immediate fulfilment. And yet one ought not to delay longer than one intended to bind oneself, for it is written (Deuteronomy 23:21): “When thou hast made a vow to the Lord thy God thou shalt not delay to pay it: because the Lord thy God will require it; and if thou delay, it shall be imputed to thee for a sin.” (Summa Theologica, Question 88, Article 3, Reply to Objection 3) Three things stand out to me from St. Thomas. God commands that one “shalt do as thou hast promised” and that God will “require” the vow to be fulfilled, and if one does not keep it, “it shall be imputed to thee for a sin.” Therefore, in light of all the above, I find the question regarding the dispensation of the Jesuit vows taken by Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., an intriguing one. Having thus framed the question, for the remainder of the article I will only use sources friendly to Pope Francis: Austen Ivereigh, Fr. James Martin, S.J., and Matt Spotts, S.J. (1) Austen Ivereigh tells us that Cardinal Bergoglio was approached at the 2013 conclave by those who worked on his behalf to elect him pope. Speaking of the effort to elect Cardinal Bergoglio in 2013, Mr. Ivereigh’s account is quoted in an article in The Telegraph: “Spotting their moment, the initiative was now seized by the European reformers who in 2005 had pushed for Bergoglio,” Mr Ivereigh, who once served as Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s press secretary, explains in the book.” (Pope Francis: how cardinals’ Conclave lobbying campaign paved way for Argentine pontiff, by John Bingham in The Telegraph, November 22, 2014) The article continues with Mr. Ivereigh’s narrative (emphasis added): “They had learnt their lessons from 2005,” Mr Ivereigh explains. “They first secured Bergoglio’s assent. Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. “Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned him to ‘be careful’, and that it was his turn now, and was told ‘capisco’ – ‘I understand’. “Then they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man, arguing that his age – 76 – should no longer be considered an obstacle, given that popes could resign. Having understood from 2005 the dynamics of a conclave, they knew that votes travelled to those who made a strong showing out of the gate.” (Pope Francis: how cardinals’ Conclave lobbying campaign paved way for Argentine pontiff, by John Bingham in the Telegraph, November 22, 2014) If we are to trust Mr. Ivereigh, a number of cardinals campaigned for Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., at the 2013 conclave. That cardinals campaigned for him is not in itself a problem. However, Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., was bound by a vow – unless previously dispensed from it – not to “ambition” for any office in the Church, of which the papacy, assuredly, is one. Yet, Mr. Ivereigh informs us the cardinals campaigning for him “first secured Bergoglio’s assent.” On the face of it, taking Mr. Ivereigh as a truthful source, it appears that Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., clearly violated one of his Jesuit vows – that is, unless he had been previously dispensed from it with regard to the 2013 conclave. Now, perhaps, it may be argued that Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J., only gave a passive assent to the campaigning on his behalf. However, one may then rightly ask whether giving assent to others to seek a dignity on one’s behalf runs afoul of the spirit of the Jesuit vow not to “ambition” or seek “any dignity.” Fr. Hardon was quoted earlier in this article on the vow: “and the fourth vow to protect the third – we are bound under sin to resist every effort to advance us in the Church.” Did Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J., “resist every effort” not to advance him? If we are to trust Mr. Ivereigh’s account, the efforts on Bergoglio’s behalf only began after he gave his “assent.” It is difficult to believe that the cardinals who campaigned for Cardinal Bergoglio would have done so had he withheld his assent, and had instead “resisted” their approach. Therefore, it seems to me – assuming arguendo the truth of Mr. Ivereigh’s account – to the question “did Cardinal Bergoglio resist every effort to advance himself in the Church” – the answer must be a definitive “no.” If Jorge Bergoglio had not been released from this vow prior to the 2013 conclave, then clearly he was still bound by this vow “under pain of mortal sin” per the authority of Fr. Hardon, S.J. But, surely, Jorge Bergoglio was dispensed by somebody, right? Surely, he must have been. I just would like to know by whom. cont'd
cont'd here (2) I came across an old article written by Fr. Martin, S.J., dating back to March 21, 2013 for the Jesuits’ own review, America – just days after the election of Pope Francis (see Is the Pope still a Jesuit, by Fr. James Martin, S.J.). The most interesting tidbit was a seeming throw-away line in the last paragraph of Fr. Martin’s article (emphasis added): “And to answer two other questions that have come up frequently: Yes, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus is obedient to Pope Francis, not the other way around. In a few days, Father General will meet with the Pope Francis to “formally” to offer his own obedience, as Superiors General have done with every Pope. And no, I seriously doubt that Cardinal Bergoglio asked the permission of the Superior General to accept his election as pope; besides, he was locked away in the conclave.” I found this statement interesting, as here we have a Jesuit, Fr. Martin, clearly suggesting Cardinal Bergoglio S.J. was not dispensed from his vow by the Superior General of his order because “he (i.e., Bergoglio) was locked away in the conclave.” If we were to posit a hypothetical case of a conclave electing a simple Jesuit priest not present in the conclave, there could be no doubt – I think – that this Jesuit priest would of necessity need to get the approval of the Superior General upon learning of his election in order to accept it. That is, we see in this thought experiment that both the vow and necessary dispensation from it applies. I do not see why this would not apply to Cardinal Bergoglio – even being in the conclave. In the case at hand, the Superior General’s dispensation after the fact – if it was given – would still appear problematical because Jorge Bergoglio should not have consented to his election at all until he had first obtained it. That is, it seems to me in this event the cardinal-electors should have sent for the Superior General. But again, we must call to mind Fr. Hardon, who in his work on the society of Jesus (see here) stated a Jesuit cannot accept any Church dignity “unless under formal obedience and pain of mortal sin from the Pope.” There may be a simple answer as to who dispensed Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., and that is more than fine. However, there being no living pope being able to do so and no Superior General of the Jesuits present in the conclave of March 2013 – per the admission of a Jesuit who is a faithful follower of Pope Francis, it appears fair to ask: who then dispensed Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., from his vows not to accept any selection or election to any dignity or office in the Church? (3) Recently, I came across an article in the Jesuit Post by yet another Jesuit, Matt Spotts, S.J., entitled What's So Weird about a Jesuit Pope dating back to March 14, 2013, soon after the conclave that elected Cardinal Bergoglio. Perhaps sensitive – even back in those days immediately following the election of Francis – to the questions such as I am asking here; Matt Spotts, S.J., offered his take on an answer (emphasis added): At times a pope commands that a Jesuit lay aside his life under the Jesuit rule and take up an entirely different role as a bishop. And yesterday, for the first time in our history a conclave told a Jesuit bishop to take up the office of Bishop of Rome. A honest and faithful Jesuit must strive to balance the the requirement not to seek honors and the Jesuit obligation to obediently serve the mission of the Church. Like Fr. Martin, the writer appears to recognize the lack of a pope or anyone else to dispense Cardinal Bergoglio S.J. from his vows to be something worthy of comment. In order to get around this difficulty Matt Spotts S.J. asserts the “conclave told a Jesuit bishop to take up the office of Bishop of Rome.” However, this proposed solution to the problem seems to me to be an insufficient one. The difficulty here is that cardinal-electors in a conclave cannot command or order or “tell” anyone to accept the papacy, nor do they have the authority to dispense vows which require the authority of a pope or the Superior General of the Jesuits. Consider, what the papal legislation governing conclaves (Universi Dominici Gregis, 1:1) declares regarding the authority of the cardinals in a conclave: During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction in matters which pertain to the Supreme Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office; such matters are to be reserved completely and exclusively to the future Pope. I therefore declare null and void any act of power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office which the College of Cardinals might see fit to exercise, beyond the limits expressly permitted in this Constitution. (Universi Dominici Gregis, 1:1) Thus, we read, the College of Cardinals does not have the “power or jurisdiction in matters which pertains to the Supreme Pontiff.” This, at least as it appears to my amateur eyes, would suggest the College of Cardinal cannot dispense someone from vows which would otherwise require the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Nor does the Code of Canon Law appear – again to my admittedly very amateur eyes – to allow an out here (see Canon 1191-1198). If not, what a Supreme Pontiff must dispense must remained “undispensed” until another pope is elected; as the principle of non-contradiction would prevent Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J., from dispensing himself of his own vows. That aside, it is quite clear that no one can “command” someone to accept their election as pope against their free will or if their will is bound by the obligation of a vow that has not been dispensed. St. Thomas Aquinas speaking on the question as to “Whether the authority of a prelate is required for the commutation or dispensation of a vow” says the following (emphasis added): I answer that, As stated above (1 and 2), a vow is a promise made to God about something acceptable to Him. Now if you promise something to anyone it depends on his decision whether he accept what you promise. Again in the Church a prelate stands in God’s place. Therefore a commutation or dispensation of vows requires the authority of a prelate who in God’s stead declares what is acceptable to God, according to 2 Corinthians 2:10: “For . . . have pardoned . . . for your sakes . . . in the person of Christ.” And he says significantly “for your sakes,” since whenever we ask a prelate for a dispensation we should do so to honor Christ in Whose person he dispenses, or to promote the interests of the Church which is His Body. (Summa Theologica, Question 88, Aricle 1) Therefore, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, it appears it would have been necessary for the proper ecclesiastical authority to dispense Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J., from his vows (NB: again, per Fr. Hardon, S.J., quoted earlier: “The third vow besides the solemn vow is to never seek or accept unless under formal obedience and pain of mortal sin from the Pope, any dignity in the Church…”). Absent such a dispensation of his vow to God, it does not appear to me Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J., would have been free to accept his election as Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church because God cannot contradict himself. That is, it would seem a contradiction to suggest God would confer something on one specifically (i.e., the office of the papacy), which one has vowed generally to God not to accept (i.e., any dignity or office in the Church – of which the papacy is one). Was Jorge Bergoglio’s will free to act or was he bound by one or more vows in God’s eyes? If that is a proper question to ask, who then dispensed Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., from the vows which bound him to neither seek nor accept any office, even if elected to it, under pain of mortal sin. Obviously, there was no pope to dispense Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., from his vow, and even Fr. Martin ‘seriously doubted’ Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., asked the Superior General of the Society of Jesus for permission to accept his election as pope. We have also seen that the cardinal-electors in a conclave do not and cannot command or order anyone to accept the papacy – nor do they appear a proper authority to release someone from a vow reserved to a pope. But, certainly, Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., must have been released from his vows by someone. Otherwise, if – hypothetically – Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., was still subject to his vows going into the conclave of 2013, he should not have accepted his election. And, if Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., should not have accepted the papacy, there is another curious hypothetical to ponder: while his election might have been valid in form and procedure, would his acceptance of the papacy have been null and void because he was not free – per his vows to God – to give it [e.g., “the Lord thy God will require it” (Deuteronomy 23:21)]? I am not alleging anything. There may be a simple answer. This, I readily admit. I just found the commentary of Mr. Ivereigh and the two cited Jesuits raising – indeed begging – more questions than they answered. As I said, I do not like loose ends, and this seems to be one: who dispensed Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., from his Jesuit vows? https://romalocutaest.com/2018/07/3...o-dispensed-jorge-bergoglio-sj-from-his-vows/ (includes hotlinks)
This is a great article, very thought-provoking. It certainly seems to bolster the St. Francis of Assisi prophecy.
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully"-Samuel Johnson.
There are only two realistic options. Either the man is a liar or an idiot. Neither qualifies him for his role. Would any parent of a son here let him near their offspring? And he gets to be in charge of the Youth Synod! Who made this decision?
Totally agree with you here. The acceptance of homosexuality for a society is God’s last straw. History shows this. We are in the end times for sure. The end of an era.
It is being reported all over the world that the Pope has changed Catholic Teaching. That is what the world and the vast majority of Catholics believe. I am afraid all the rest is semantics for the learned few.
I was listening to Catholic talk radio today and a caller called in confused if we are to accept this new teaching as it is in opposition to what the Church has always taught and the priest "expert" they had on said it is a part of the catechism now and is a part of the ordinary authentic Magisterium and we must assent to it. Very sad even those in authority over us will throw out 2000 years of clear teaching just because the Pope said something. Wikipedia already states: The Catholic Church views capital punishment as "inadmissible" as it violates the dignity of mankind.[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church proclaims that "in the light of the Gospel" the death penalty is "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person."[2] Pope Francis has also proclaimed that life imprisonment is a form of torture and "a hidden [form of the] death penalty."[3] Throughout history, the Catholic Church has moved from being supportive of the death penalty to opposing the practice.
I believe, the confused will remain confused, because they have refused to desire and live the truths of the faith. Human nature wants to take the easiest path and will make all kinds of roads to defend the easy road and be popular. It is the path forward for the church. Half truths will continue to be the way until the purification is completed. Mercy will continue to be redefined, as this makes those who want to find compromises to absolute church teachings feel justified in any of the teachings they no longer want to believe in. Just think...... it is very bad now, but when the Antichrist is revealed it will be nearly impossible for anyone to stay the faith. The closer we come to this point, the more the deception will be. "When I return, will I find any faithful"?
According to the Venerable Blessed B.H. We are in the 5 th age of the Church. Is there an Antichrist in this age, or in the last age only?
Many current Catholic prophecies have the Antichrist and False Prophet appearing in our times and possibly another type of antichrist at the end of the world. But I don't want to start a discussion on this on this thread. It sure does have all the indicators from Matthew 24, that he is in our midst at this moment.
I saw this on Wikipedia news. In effect, though, the Pope can not technically *change* what the Church teaches, as what the Church teaches ultimately stems from Christ, who is the Head. The Pope is just entrusted with what the Church teaches and should just keep teaching what has been taught. He can not in effect alter reality, or change what is good and evil in the sight of God, though. If he presumes that he is doing this, he is wrong. This reminds me of a supposed Garabandal prophesy (Glenn is more than welcome to correct me on this!) which calculates John Paul II as being the last Pope. This is not to say that Benedict or Francis' elections were invalid, but with Benedict stepping down weirdly, and Francis being a probable heretic , John Paul II may have been our last Pope as Father, last Good Shepherd who stayed until the end, and last Teacher for us to look up to. I have a prayer card of his tucked away in the Divine Mercy Diary.
Dang, see, this is exactly what 99.9% of everyone is going to think. Duh. I don't blame them for assuming this. But if we know better, we need to say something.
I posted this on the thread that pertains to the discussion on capital punishment, but I am re-posting it here because my discussion of the issue bled over to this thread as well: I am writing this post because I felt I needed to apologize to any who may have been reading this thread and been scandalized or mislead by my comments regarding the apparent “change” to Church teaching. In my frustration at the current situation and my haste to find fault I relied upon the early reports by bloggers to form my opinion about the issue, rather than wait for the intellectual analysis by experts that was surely to come in the ensuing days. Part of this is perhaps that fact that I have grown weary and tired of waiting for the Dubia Cardinals or someone else to act and attempt to straighten out the giant debacles currently plaguing in the Church. That is not an excuse, but it was what shaped my reason. In the past I have tried to be measured in my responses to crises since they pertain to the most grave of circumstances surrounding the Holy See. In this case I did not. If I would have waited, I would have seen the issue more clearly, or rather been able to read articles about the issue from experts. Sometimes my intellectual hubris (of which I have no right to have any) gets the better of me. I have no degree in theology, no training in canon law. Indeed I have no special religious training at all except what I have cobbled together myself through personal reading. This is far from enough to form arguments as to whether a Pope is in error, which is one of the most serious judgements anyone could level in this world. Don’t misunderstand me. I still think the rewriting of the Catechism is extremely ambiguous and confusing in that it seems to change Church teaching, when in reality it does not. Sadly that is what many lay people around the world may take from it. That any Church teaching can now be rewritten. This is of course untrue. Here are two articles by much more intelligent, trained and competent writers than I that show exactly why I should have waited in my rush to judgement: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...pe-francis-changes-catechism-on-the-death-pen https://dwightlongenecker.com/do-you-have-to-accept-the-popes-death-penalty-decision/
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser doesn't state the antichrist comes at the end of this age (the 5th). The consensus of approved Catholic prophecy seems to indicate that we are going to go through a chastisement, then an era of peace, then the antichrist will come, then comes the end of the world. That is the general course of events from saints and approved visionaries and Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser's writings are in accord with that consensus. The Seven Ages of the Church according to the writings of the Venerable Bartholemew Holzhauser (1613-1658) Germany 1. Status Seminativus AD 30-70 *Apostles* from Christ and the Apostles until Pope Linus and the Emperor Nero 2. Status Irrigativus AD 70-330 *Martyrs* 10 Persecutions of the Church 3. Status Illuminativus AD 330-500 *Doctors* from Pope Sylvester to Leo III 4. Status Pacificus AD 500-1500 *Christendom* from Pope Leo III to Leo X 5. Status Afflictionis et Purgativus 1517-? *Heresy/Decline* from Leo X to a strong ruler/strong monarch/holy pope 6. Status Consolationis ? *Triumph* from the holy pope until the Antichrist 7. Status Desolationis ? *Antichrist/End* from the Antichrist to the End of the World
Is what we're witnessing in these reports from all over shades of what is to come.....if we don't get these "hints"? Our Lady isn't kidding when she warns us now about the state of things to come...and of course the world won't be destroyed/purified again by water, but...... Today could be the hottest day in the history of Europe LISBON — Temperatures in Spain and Portugal soared to near-record highs Friday as part of Europe’s heat wave, and governments put emergency services on alert for forest fires. Iberia’s heat wave, caused by hot air from North Africa, is the most severe since 2003. Elsewhere, summer has brought forest fires and drought to places as far apart as Britain, Scandinavia and Greece. Temperatures in many parts of Spain and Portugal will remain above 104 degrees Fahrenheit at least until Sunday, and could rise a further 3 or 4 degrees. That could push them above Europe’s previous record high of 118 F, set in Athens in 1977. The previous record highs in both Spain and Portugal were just over 116 F. In Portugal, local media ran stories on how temperatures could beat Death Valley in California, one of the hottest places on Earth. “Lisbon will be one of the hottest cities in the world this weekend because it’s 10 in the morning right now and the weather is already way too hot,” said Ana Pascoal, 56, a cleaner at a high-end restaurant. “It really is unbearable.” Several places in Portugal’s parched southern Alentejo region were forecast to hit 116 F. The country went on high alert in an effort to prevent a repeat of the worst fires in history last year, which killed 114 people. Francois Jobard, a weather forecaster for Meteo France, said the hot air mass from North Africa “will possibly result in record temperatures in Portugal and Spain with [113 F] expected from now until Saturday, and even hotter than that.” At the other end of the Mediterranean, Greece was hit by wildfires that killed 91 people last month. Our planet is one big fireball Spanish authorities put out a heat wave warning for most of central Spain, expected to last until Sunday with temperatures of over 108 F in some parts of Andalusia and Extrem adura. Two men have died of heat stroke in the southeastern region of Murcia, Cadena Ser radio station reported Wednesday. They were a 48-year-old man working on roads and a 78-year-old man who was working in his community garden, Cadena Ser said. In Switzerland, mountain railways reported booming business as city dwellers fled to the Alps. Fishery authorities in the canton of Zurich were combing creeks to rescue fish from suffocation as streams dry up or oxygen levels plunge. The Swiss army let soldiers wear shorts and T-shirts instead of standard uniforms. Farther north in Scandinavia, temperatures hit records until a few days ago. In Sweden, July was a record hot month and wildfires burned in parts of the country. Authorities warned of extreme risk of wildfires again this weekend. Meanwhile, authorities on both sides of the Baltic Sea, in Sweden and Poland, have warned against swimming due to a huge bloom of toxic algae spreading because of high temperatures. https://nypost.com/2018/08/03/today-could-be-the-hottest-day-in-the-history-of-europe/
