I didn't respond to your point because there was nothing to it, not because it was so good I couldn't think of a response. I took time to put together a well thought out answer to your question and you didn't address any of the points I brought up, so why continue? And I was not insulting you, just trying to let you know that on the internet when PEOPLE WRITE LIKE THIS IT IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD THEY ARE YELLING!
Excellent response Succinct and addressing all points. I think many are waking up now to the damage that all of these changes made. Of course, all of this we now know is with the benefit of hindsight. I wasn't alive back when Vatican II was occurring, but if I was I suspect I would have gone along with all of the changes just as everyone else did without realizing the long-range consequences.
Hindsight being 20/20 vision, I have mixed feelings about Vatican 11. Prior to the last couple of years, it did seem to be a complete disaster. Now I'm inclined to be grateful that it happened when it did. An Ecumenical Council was on the cards and would have happened sooner or later. Imagine if Vatican 11 were happening now under Pope Francis. The Pope of the rigged synod and double speak would use the Council to completely reverse everything the Church has always held to be true. With the backing of an Ecumenical Council, the obscure language he uses now to cover heresy could be completely discarded. In some respects, Vatican 11 prevented that happening because the modernists, while having a lot of influence, were a minority. Using Nostra Aetate as an example, we can see how the modernists used what are now obviously the tactics of Pope Francis, but it is clear that they didn't hold sway. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ts/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html The Modernist influence at Vatican 11 appears to have been two-pronged........ an outright attack on the liturgy led by Vincentian Fr. (later Cardinal) Bugnini. It appears that Cardinal Bugnini was a Freemason and when the suspicions surrounding his Masonic connections could no longer be ignored, Pope Paul V1 removed him from his influential position in the Curia and sent him to Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annibale_Bugnini. undermining the belief that the Catholic Church, instituted by Jesus, holds the fullness of revealed truth. Looking back, it appears that Cardinal Bea, a German Jesuit, was the brains behind this attack on the faith and is said to have been the main influence behind Nostra Aetate. It was Cardinal Bea who objected to the Council Fathers taking an oath based on the Nicene Creed and the Oath against Modernism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin_Bea I don't agree with Padraig that taking the oath would have been useless. Useless to apostate Bishops but not to dissenters who still believed in God and the gravity of breaking an oath. Any honourable men among the dissenters would have either refused to take the oath or have felt bound by it, perhaps lessening the influence of the Modernists. Cardinal Bea was the link with Abraham Joshua Heschel, the American Jewish representative at Vatican 11. This from Heschel's Wikipedia page (don't discount it because it's Wikipedia - you'll find similar accounts elsewhere, especially Jewish sources): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Joshua_Heschel "Heschel is a widely read Jewish theologian whose most influential works include Man Is Not Alone, God in Search of Man, The Sabbath, and The Prophets. At the Vatican Council II, as representative of American Jews, Heschel persuaded the Catholic Church to eliminate or modify passages in its liturgy that demeaned the Jews, or referred to an expected conversion to Christianity. His theological works argued that religious experience is a fundamentally human impulse, not just a Jewish one. He believed that no religious community could claim a monopoly on religious truth." While Nostra Aetate certainly used nice language in reference to other religions, it did not eliminate reference to an expected Jewish conversion to Christianity. We had enough faithful Bishops then to ensure that didn't happen. Now, the majority of Bishops would adopt Heschel's beliefs in a heartbeat. There are similarities between Pope Francis and Cardinal Bea. One which stands out is that Bea's Jesuit Superior General didn't want him made a Cardinal. The politically correct excuse given at the time was that the Pope was promoting too many Jesuits. Evidently, the Superior General suspected that Bea was bad news, just as Fr. Bergoglio's superior didn't consider him a suitable candidate for promotion. My main reservation about Fr. Malachi Martin is his association with Cardinal Bea. According to his Rabbi friend, Pope Francis is also a big fan of Heschel. Heschel is credited as the origin of the belief expressed by Pope Francis that it's God who needs us, and that God can't be God without us, although according to Pope Francis it's in the Gospel. "Time is greater than space" is another of Heschel's sayings. I don't think the Pope actually used that saying. Wasn't it one of his lackey's? Probably letting the Holy Father know that he, too, had read Heschel. While I'm not as hung up about the Latin Mass as others here, I would be very wary of promoting as good fruits changes in the liturgy introduced by a Cardinal with Masonic links. I would also be very wary of promoting as good a document influenced by a Jewish Rabbi and his Jesuit contact. That the document is bland and didn't introduce anything new doesn't make it a good fruit. That it can be used to promote something other than what the Church has always held to be true points to it as being a kind of fore-runner of the likes of Amoris Laetitia. I see good in having parts of the liturgy in the vernacular, although it would be better if everything to do with the Consecration were in Latin, thereby rendering it almost impossible for individual priests to introduce their own "improvements". Having the priest face the people was, in my opinion, one of the worst "fruits" of Vatican 11 because it contributed to the focus shifting from God to the priest. We know that Christ promised to protect his Church to the end (note Church and not Peter or individual apostles) and we know that the promise will be kept. Looking at the current regime in the Vatican, it's hard to figure out how Jesus will keep that promise but all things are possible with God. The Apostles got the same promises as the rest of us: love and worship God, love your neighbour, carry your cross, spread the faith, keep the Commandments, and you will be saved, otherwise Hell awaits. We'll just have to trust that Jesus will do what he promised, keeping our own lamps lit while we wait.
But it was Christ HImself who established the Hierarchical nature of the Church; He gave the Keys to Peter. Who then can judge Peter? The only possibility might be those who Elcected Him the Cardinal Electors. if any of them had questioned the Elction things moght be a lot different. But none of them have. Not a single one. Not Caridnal Burke, not any of the Dubia Cardinals. Not one. I only know of one single Bishop in the whoel Church who has questioned it. before you run an automobile you need gas in the tank. There is no gas in the tank. Therefore the vehicle is going nowhere. Like I say this is a rabbit hole and I see no point going down it. It is a waste of time. Worse it is a distraction from the real issues. A bird that is not going to fly. Worse again it would make Pope Francis some kind of martyr figure and undercut any real efforts to question this most abominable Papacy. To question horrors like this, which Pope Francis has signed up to:
Yes, even more reason they should be careful what they say in my humble opinion. People are listening and they have clout. Perhaps God is speaking to them. I don't know. A number of things could have happened with the election of Pope Francis, which we all know, but to enumerate them: 1. Pope Benedict stepped down properly and Pope Francis was elected normally. -Then we must accept Pope Francis as validly elected. 2. Pope Benedict did not renounce the office properly and he is still Pope, therefore, there could not be a proper election to elect another Pope. -BUT we can't know if this happened unless the proper authorities investigate and tell us so. So we must accept Pope Francis as validly elected. 3. Pope Francis was elected validly, but the office may have been lost through heresy (It is debated by theologians as to what happens if a Pope falls into heresy). None of us has the authority to make that claim. -So we must accept Pope Francis as Pope unless such a time comes when the proper authorities announce there has been heresy and the office is vacant. Note: I am not saying, nor am I competent to state that Pope Francis has committed personal heresy. I am simply saying that this is one of the arguments of those who say he is/may not be Pope. Any way we slice it at this moment the prudent thing to do is to accept Pope Francis as valid and just ignore any false teachings that are coming out of the Vatican or other places. That is how I have analyzed the situation and the conclusion I have come to, but I am no theologian or canon lawyer. That is just what I have deduced from what I could understand through study and prayer. The sticking point is Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one. So a successor Pope (an equal) might judge a previous Pope, but on Earth he has no equal while reigning. What theologians debate (and to be honest is unclear to me after much study) is whether a Pope loses office immediately upon pronouncing heresy. Some seem to say yes and some seem to say no. This leaves the faithful in an unimaginably bad situation.
We should put our trust in no mortal man, but perhaps Malachi Martin took the course he did in reaction to the behaviour of Bea? A Pauline conversion, so to speak, or perhaps Martin was merely naive, a forgiveable fault in a young man? Martin seems to have dedicated his life to inhibiting the progress of Bea's plans.
We can still smile a bit, right? https://babylonbee.com/news/pope-francis-escapes-handlers-attempts-ok-polygamy-unitarians Pope Francis Escapes Handlers, Attempts To OK Polygamy, Unitarianism June 6th, 2016 VATICAN CITY—Pope Francis again eluded his security detail Monday, this time quickly releasing statements which seem to cast doubt on the Catholic Church’s longstanding positions on polygamy and Unitarianism before he could be secured again, sources confirmed. Francis was reportedly able to trick his handlers into thinking he was still in bed by stuffing pillows under his blankets early in the morning and leaving a CD of snoring sounds on repeat in the papal apartment. By the time his head of security discovered the ruse, Francis had already given an interview to an Italian television station possibly affirming polygamy, saying, “Listen, I don’t want to come down too heavy on that. Just seems kind of harsh—and who am I to judge?” The Pope then led his security detail on a wild chase through St. Peter’s Square, weaving in and out of the Swiss Guard, losing his pursuers in the cheering throngs. However, he did stop long enough to give a quick, scandalous statement to the Catholic News Syndicate on Unitarians, saying he thought they were “maybe, you know, not too far off.” Vatican security finally discovered the Bishop of Rome sleeping in his custom upholstered van while a Yes album played on the vehicle’s 8-track player. After the incident, an official spokesman for the Vatican unequivocally confirmed the traditional Catholic stances on marriage as well as the Trinity, before promising to double the size of the security team assigned to Pope Francis.
To make oneself and others know what is happening seems essential, but to say, "he's not my pope" or anything else that would indicate we are without a pope, is wrong. He is our Pope if you are Roman Catholic. He needs our prayers if we are to make it the heaven ourselves. "Pray for those who persecute you" is a commandment, not a suggestion. I am as frustrated as anyone, but we have to keep our perceptive and not assume we can ignore the evil the prevails all around us, both in the world and in the Church, in lieu of praying for God's intervention.
We’re going to have to deal with this debate, whether we like it or not. It’s going mainstream. https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/22...-is-still-pope/amp/?__twitter_impression=true Socci: “The Secret of Benedict XVI. Why He is Still Pope.” 3 days ago Antonio Socci’s new book is set for release 27 November. Available for pre-order (Italian only) HERE. From the Amazon summary, via Google Translate: The Church goes through the most serious crisis in its history, according to many observers. More questions are asked about what really happened in 2013 with the surprising “renunciation” of Benedict XVI, his decision to remain “pope emeritus” and the coexistence of two popes. Why had Benedict XVI become a sign of contradiction? What was happening on a geopolitical level? Who advocated a “revolution” within the Catholic Church? And has the pope really resigned? These are the questions Antonio Socci tries to answer through the facts, gestures and words of Benedict XVI in these six years, discovering, as in an exciting thriller, that he actually remained pope , with consequences still unexplored. In this compelling and documented investigation we try to understand what is happening in the Vatican, but above all it investigates the mysterious mission to which Benedict XVI has been called, for the Church and for the world. The author hypothesizes that there may also be supernatural events at the origin of his choice. Then there is to decipher an ancient prophecy concerning blessed xvi and there is finally a new revelation that comes from Fatima, that not only affects the Church, but the whole world. It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.
You're probably right. He was very young and Cardinal Bea seems to have been a wily old fox. It just niggles at me that Fr. Martin's Jewish contacts (presumably Cardinal Bea's contacts) helped him get established after he left the Jesuits. Didn't he write a book or two using a pseudonym? If his was a Pauline conversion, it would be helpful to know when that happened. My cynical side suspects that there was more to his leaving the Jesuits than the reason he made public. Nevertheless, he hit the nail on the head when saying that Pope John Paul was surrounded by enemies, and they didn't go away when Pope Benedict succeeded him. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Pope Paul V1 realised that Bugnini had been playing for the opposition. Imagine his dilemma. Having bought into all Bugnini's changes at the Council, he couldn't denounce him publicly. Packing Bugnini off to Iran where he could do the least damage was probably the most palatable option for the Pope. I read somewhere that Pope Paul V1 was very troubled towards the end of his life. Very sad. Anyway, at least Paul V1 put a stop, albeit belatedly, to Bugnini's gallop. If only Pope John Paul 11 or Pope Benedict XV1 had done the same with Cardinal Martini we might have been spared the current shambolic papacy. Perhaps they thought that John Paul's changes to the rules for the next Conclave would have some effect on the St. Gallen group. Perhaps, like Paul V1, they didn't realise just how much of a foothold the Masons had in the Vatican. Good people tend to focus on the good in others, often missing the hidden evil intent. This assessment of Bugnini could be applied to quite a few of today's movers and shakers in the Church: "A man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty". Bugnini's secretary, Archbishop Marini, seems to have been cut from the same cloth. From his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Marini "Marini promoted Vatican II reforms including the "simplification of rites that he believes facilitates active participation." He supports the integration of local customs into church rituals. At a celebration he oversaw in 1998, a group of scantily clad Pacific Islanders danced during the opening liturgy of the Synod for Oceania in St. Peter's Basilica; Pope John Paul II's visit to Mexico City in 2002, an indigenous Mexican shaman performed a purification ritual on the pope during Mass." "Marini has said he is "not nostalgic for what he regards as the repetitive nature of the old Mass, neither the exaltation of the celebrant to the detriment of the people of God; and he deplores the marked split between the priest and the assembly." A supporter of same-sex civil unions, it's not surprising that Archbishop Marini seemed to have found favour with Pope Francis, although he's probably out of action now due to suffering a stroke in 2016. Reading about these people brings home how difficult it must have been for Popes John Paul and Benedict to lead the Church. Surrounded by vipers, it must have been almost impossible to distinguish between friends and enemies. Could it be that seeing the names of some of his supposed friends listed in the document Archbishop Vigano referred to was the last straw for Pope Benedict? In that Rome Reports video which Padraig linked to, Fr. Lombardi said that Benedict "could not do almost anything expected of a Pope; he could not travel; he could not preside over public celebrations". A Pope's principal duty is to defend the faith, strengthening his brethern. Very many Popes managed to do that without leaving Rome, yet in these days of instant communication, a man can't be Pope without being able to travel? Lettergate showed us that that Pope Benedict's mind is at least sharper than those who tried to hoodwink him and the public. There's a strong stench coming from that smoke of Satan.
I agree. DeGaulle's response nails it. I was in a Catholic college when the changes began. It was easy to get swept up in it especially with the young nun professors. Very gung ho. The older ones not so much. It was a carnival. A circus. The changes came so fast it produced dizziness. The ferris wheel spun me right out of the Church. When I came back a few years later sadder and wiser to paraphrase Yeats: "all was changed. C hanged utterly." I felt like Mary Magdalen at the tomb. "they have taken my Lord and I don't know where they have lain Him." I have been a stranger in a strange land ever since. Except at the Latin Mass. Otherwise I live in exile making the best of a foreign culture. I have adapted and I appreciate the blessings I have but I am not home. That is what it was like and that is how it is today for me. Having said all that I am grateful for reverent NO Masses and for Eucharistic Adoration. I am grateful for good and faithful priests. ( they were in short supply in the 70's and 80's) I feel as if I dined on rich sumptuous feasts in my youth and then the long years of fasting followed. But as I said I am grateful for what I have e. I still have the Lord and that is everything.and I've lived long enough to see a return of devotion to the Rosary and Eucharistic Adoration and the prayer to St Michael make a comeback so..... Maybe I will see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart!!
I have experienced all that you describe except the Catholic college. I appreciate that you shared that. I was away from the Church for almost 6 years and came back to find it utterly changed also. Dolours said that this trial is like the one that the Israelites suffered through in the desert. You have described the past so well! Exactly.
Please think this logic. Joey was promised to have his sight recovered the day of this alleged miracle. As this great miracle has not happened and he is dead are we to believe he is still blind in heaven, purgatory or hell? I believe that when we die, blind or not, we will see the after world one way or another.
I am not going to get into an arguement with you or anyone else about this, so this will be my last word. Using these words of scripture does not work well to justify this failed prophecy, this looks desperate. When the King of lies comes as an angel of light, he covers his tracks as best he can. I too once believed in Garabandal until maybe 15 years ago when I did some further research. I found that the Church had condemned it from the beginning and God opened my eyes to see all the failed prophecies that this alleged Mary said. What I found more frightening was then seeing that these poor girls were possessed by an evil spirit. Look at the way their heads are held so far back. See how they were forced on their knees with such a hard and hateful thud. God never forces us on our knees and he is always gentle. Look at the children of Fatima and St Bernadette. They never ran around with their heads so bent back like you only see in satanic works. They gracefully got down on their knees through 'their own free will'. I could go on, but how much proof is needed? Believe as you will, but it is better to let go of pride and admit that you too had been decieved like I once was rather than spending so much time copy and pasting the books on Garabandal as if it is Gospel. I'll leave it there.
I'm not certain if the following has been posted already, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, leaving the Synod on Youth, Oct. 16, 2018. (Edward Pentin photo) Cardinals Cupich, Gracias Appointed to Committee for February Abuse Meeting Archbishop Charles Scicluna and Jesuit Father Hans Zollner are the others named to the organizing committee while two women, abuse victims and members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors will help with the preparatory work. Nov. 23, 2018 | Edward Pentin | http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...inted-to-committee-for-february-abuse-meeting [Click on the link to access additional hotlinks included in the article.] Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago and Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta are among those Pope Francis appointed today to the organizing committee for next February’s meeting of presidents of bishops’ conferences to discuss the protection of minors in the Church. In a statement released on Friday, the Vatican said they will be joined by Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay, India, and Jesuit Father Hans Zollner, president of the Centre for the Protection of Minors at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Father Zollner, who is also member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, will be the contact person for the committee, the Vatican said. In September, Pope Francis called for the special Feb. 21-24 meeting, whose official theme is the “protection of minors and vulnerable adults,” following a raft of revelations of historical clerical abuse cases in various parts of the world. The Vatican also announced on Friday that, as well as the conference presidents, those taking part in the meeting will include the heads of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches; “superiors” from the Secretariat of State; heads of various curial dicasteries (the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, Oriental Churches, Bishops, the Evangelization of Peoples, Clergy, Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life, and the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life), as well as representatives of the Union of Superiors General and of the International Union of Superiors General. The preparatory work for the meeting will involve the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, along with some victims of clerical sex abuse, as well as two women: Gabriella Gambino, undersecretary for the section for life, and Linda Ghisoni, undersecretary for the section for the lay faithful, of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life. In comments to the media, Holy See Press Office Director Greg Burke said the meeting “is unprecendented” and shows the Pope “has made the protection of minors a fundamental priority for the Church.” “This is about keeping children safe from harm worldwide,” Burke said. “Pope Francis wants Church leaders to have a full understanding of the devastating impact that clerical sexual abuse has on victims.” He added that the meeting “is primarily one for bishops – and they have much of the responsibility for this grave problem,” but that “lay men and women who are experts in the field of abuse will give their input, and can help address especially what needs to done to ensure transparency and accountability.” Questionnaire Archbishop Scicluna is included among the members because of his long experience of conducting investigations into sexual abuse by clergy on behalf of the Holy See. Pope Francis recently appointed him adjunct secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican dicastery responsible for dealing with clerical abuse cases. In a Nov. 23 interview with Vatican Media, Father Zollner said the meeting will be “very important for the Church” and that the committee will be in charge of both “logistics and content, according to the directions given by the Holy Father.” Father Zollner said a questionnaire will be sent to participants beforehand so they can “share experiences, difficulties, as well as possible solutions to deal with this terrible scandal.” He said the meeting should be “as free and fruitful as possible” and consultation will be wide. The Pontifical Commission will play a significant role in the preparation of the meeting which will also reflect the Pope’s emphasis on synodality and collegiality, Father Zollner said. Cardinal Cupich said Nov. 20 he believed the meeting will be a “watershed moment in the life of the Church” and that “time and again” the Pope “has shown his resolve to comprehensively address this scourge.” The archbishop of Chicago, who, like the Holy Father, has frequently blamed the crisis primarily on “clericalism,” said Francis is “calling for radical reform in the life of the Church, for he understands that this crisis is about the abuse of power and a culture of protection and privilege, which have created a climate of secrecy, without accountability for misdeeds.” “All of that has to end, not only in terms of how it risks the safety of children, but also how the abuse of power by certain leaders undermines the Gospel and injures the faith lives of the people the ordained have been sent to serve,” Cardinal Cupich said. In the collective assessment of informed commentators who spoke with the Register in September, the planned meeting will be effective only if its mandate includes the drafting of norms to hold bishops accountable and a discussion of how central homosexuality has been to the problem of clergy sexual abuse. Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy, a former executive director of the USCCB’s Secretariat for Doctrine, said it will become clear “how serious” the Holy Father is about tackling the problem if the February meeting addresses “the issue of active homosexuality among the clergy and the bishops.” Citing both the 2004 John Jay Report on clerical sex abuse in the U.S. and this year’s Pennsylvania grand jury report, Father Weinandy said it has “become quite evident that priests and bishops engage in homosexual activity.” Worldwide Scandal The February meeting will follow a series of clerical sex abuse revelations, including the Aug. 14 Pennsylvania grand jury report, which asserted that more than 300 priests abused minors over seven decades and that those crimes were covered up by bishops in six dioceses. Other revelations include thousands of historical clergy sex-abuse cases over a similar period in Germany and the Netherlands; and further cases in Chile, Australia and elsewhere, including the Pope’s reported involvement in a high-profile Argentinian case that came to national attention while he was serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires. The meeting will also be held in the context of revelations that some bishops allegedly have been either involved in abuse or in subsequent cover-ups. Most prominently, this includes the archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick. In June, it was disclosed that the Archdiocese of New York had received “credible and substantiated” allegations that Archbishop McCarrick had sexually abused a minor male altar server during the early 1970s and that, during the time he served as a bishop in New Jersey, he had also faced allegations of sexual misconduct with seminarians and priests that later resulted in a pair of legal settlements. This was followed by claims made in late August by the former nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, that from shortly after the time of his election Pope Francis had been informed about Archbishop McCarrick’s abuses, as well as about measures reportedly put in place against him by Pope Benedict XVI, and that the Holy Father nevertheless gave the archbishop renewed influence in the Church. The Pope has not directly addressed the claims, but last month the Vatican announced a “thorough study” would be made of all the documentation contained in the Vatican archives in order to “ascertain all the relevant facts” surrounding the ex-cardinal. Meanwhile, in Honduras, the Pope in July accepted the resignation of Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda of Tegucigalpa, following allegations he had sexually abused seminarians. Before his resignation, Bishop Pineda had been defended by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, who is also the head of the Pope’s council of cardinals. In his Nov. 23 interview, Father Hans Zollner said the Pope is “convinced” that this “plague,” and what Francis has many times called a “sacrilege,” is a “problem that does not affect a single country and certainly not only western countries” but “touches all countries.” “That places us as believers before the mystery of evil,” Father Zollner said, “and the need to fight it all the way, without hesitation.” *** Edited to add:
Just letting everyone know Bishop Morlino passed away tonight. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4228-bishop-robert-morlino-rip
