Two pieces by Mark: one good one bad

This may be an oversimplification (it probably is) and of course I´m open for correction but Mark Mallett has given us two pieces in recent days: one is a parallel between the current Pope and President Trump. Besides the fact that I see little in common between the two men I think it´s incredibly naive and unworthy of this good man who has produced great articles over the years. Here are some excerpts in bold:

According to alleged conspiracies, it has been suggested that Russia colluded in getting Donald Trump elected. Likewise, that the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia”, a small group of cardinals, conspired to raise Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy.

Sorry, but this is not an alleged conspiracy: the St Gallen people themselves first brought it to the world´s attention it and coined the term "St Gallen Mafia"

opponents of the Pope and the President continue to insist that they hold office illegitimately. In the case of the Pope, there is a movement to declare his papacy invalid, and thus, that he is an “anti-pope.

Wrong again. The serious people who question this Pope´s actions DO NOT call his papacy invalid and DO NOT call him an anti-pope. There are fringe groups who may suggest that but this is a straw man argument that misrepresents the REAL problem.

Coming in as “outsiders” and perhaps victims of their inexperience with the “establishment,” both men have surrounded themselves with advisors and associates who have been controversial and caused problems for their leadership and reputation.

Really? I mean, really? Has the present pope surrounded himself with bad men because of his "inexperience"?

The media have served as the “official opposition” against either man with a general and nearly universal negative approach to either.

Again, really? That would certainly apply to President Trump but has the media been universally opposed to the current pope? It´s hard to believe anyone would make such a claim. All I see from the mainstream media is praise for the pope and his agenda. Or am I missing something?

Here is the link to The Agitators: https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2019/09/30/the-agitators/

On the other hand, Mark´s recent piece on Cardinal Newman is, I believe, bold and to the point. Excerpts:

Indeed, the darkness that has descended at this hour is perhaps unlike anything the world has ever seen. Logic has been turned upside down. Good (such as the family, marriage, fatherhood, etc.) are now considered societal evils while immorality is praised and celebrated as good. The natural law is scorned while “feelings” are enshrined in law.

Instead of transforming society with the message of the Gospel, however, reducing one’s carbon footprint is seemingly the new mission. Being “tolerant” and “inclusive” has replaced authentic virtue and holiness. Turning off the lights, recycling, and using less plastic (as worthy as these are) have become the new sacraments. Waving rainbow flags has replaced the Banner of Christ.

How can he not see that the current pope is at least an important factor in the mess he so vividly describes? Baffling.

https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2019/10/14/newmans-prophecy/

 

I read Mark's post, 'The Agitators'. My bottom line is that in comparing Pope Francis to President Trump he is writing a lot without really saying anything at all. Say Pope Francis and President Trump could be compared. What does that really matter? What difference does it make anyway?

The real issues lie in Pope Francis's Pontificate itself. Here there are many, many, many matters of concern. Yet Mark steers very, very well clear of addressing them, one way of another. He has always steers very,very well clear of addressing them except in very vague generalised terms.

The difficulty for Mark and toehr commentators is if he does get down to brass tacks and address them he will. automatically loose half his followers. fan base.

So he is left with the option of riding two horses at the one time. While appearing to address issues he says nothing really at all.

But the time for riding two horses at the one time will soon come to an end. Then he will have to be truly controversial instead of , as he does now, attempt to give of the impression that he is being controversial when he is steering as far away from trouble as he possibly can. The time of very, very, very careful middle of the road driving driving won't last forever.

Ecclesiastes 10:8

“When you dig a well, you might fall in. When you demolish an old wall, you could be bitten by a snake.”

Nevertheless when a well must be dug, we must dig it. When we must demolish a wall , it must be demolished. However many followers we might loose in the process.

 

So true.

Is that it? Maybe I´m the one being naive now, but I wonder if it´s about losing his followers. And if it is, I feel sorry for the good man - often facing such dire financial situations. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that one as bright and insightful as Mark would truly believe that the current pope has surrounded himself with "controversial" (!!) advisors through "inexperience" (!)

And the part about the media being "universally opposed to him" is laughable.

I sincerely hope so. He´s such a gifted writer and obviously a good man who carries a big responsibility - thousands of people follow his posts and are influenced by his opinions. I pray the words of Our Lord will never EVER apply to him, not even remotely - NEVER, I pray, Lord:

 

For someone like Mark in full time Catholic Ministry with a large family it is hard to see how he could speak out without serious, serious consequences. Many Bishops would simply see the doors closed against him This is especially hard if you have a very public prophetic ministry.

It's safe to write about St John Henry Newman so he does so freely.

It's not safe to write about this Pontificate so when he does so he walks on eggshells. Saying much and managing to avoid saying anything at all.

I do have sympathy with this. But, it has to be said, this is what is happening. Earlier on in this Pontificate allowances might have been made. But the Amazon Synod was a game changer.

True Prophets speak out. That's what true prophets do.. They don't give vague political analysis and comparisons. They denounce evil They speak out.

Isaiah 41:22

Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.

 

Michael Brown of Spirit Daily also refuses to confront the problems with this pontificate.

Indeed all is normal in his Catholic world view.

https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/pope-learn-to-point-the-finger-at-yourself-to-be-freed-of-hypocrisy

And a nice little link on the amazing amazon synod of the laity.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatic...s-synod-tenth-general-congregation-day-7.html

All is rosy in Michael's little Catholic garden.

Amazing how reliance on subscribers blunts the prophetic voice.

 

I think he is trying very hard to not sin. It is a very slippery slope publicly criticizing the successor of Peter. But at the same time the elephant is in the living room impossible to ignore. He is trying to put the best possible motives to the Pope's words and actions while still sounding the alarm. An impossible position to be in.

 

I think Mark is a good man in a bad spot. I don't know how he makes his living, but if it is only based on his religious apostolate I would say time to find other part time work. I don't mean that as an insult, but I think shortly one will have to take a stand. The divide is widening. There is less and less middle ground.

I can relate to him not wanting to say anything bad about the Holy Father. I struggle with this myself. We should be as charitable as possible, but if one is going to take that tact then perhaps not approach any controversial issues and just focus on prayer, etc.

 

If this Synod works out as expected, Mark would be a likely candidate for the viri probati option. If a drug snorting Shaman can be eligible for ordination to part-time priesthood, passing the crash course in seminary should be a breeze for someone like Mark.

 

Can we call it a sham shaman synod?

 

I have been feeling quite guilty about being hard and maybe uncharitable about Mark. He and his family are outstanding Catholics. I would be very wrong to question motives.

But I am genuinely baffled as to how he regards events as he does. Totally baffled.

I mean the Amazon Synod appears to me Satanic.

 

I like Mark and I try not to judge him. I do not a have a family to support. I think he will end up on the right side.

As far as the video you linked, yes, this was paganism in the Vatican. Case closed. I gave them the benefit of the doubt at the beginning, but now they have admitted it is not Christian in any sense of the word. So it was a religious ritual that was not Christian. It was an indigenous religious ritual. Which means...it was pagan. No need to dance around things. Basically it was pagan and they don't have a problem with it. That is the bottom line.

A quote from the speaker in the video you posted above in reference to the pagan idol:
"I can tell you that some of the things in history can be interpreted in different ways..."

Yep. That tells us all we need to know. That is how they are pushing through all of this garbage. It is a "new interpretation." We don't need to call it a pagan idol. We can call it a sacred image representing fertility and the Earth and the feminine. Um yeah, so pagan. Sorry sir did you see the people prostrating themselves and worshipping the idol? Christians do not do that with symbols. That is idolatry.

 

I listened to the Vatican spokesman. It made me cringe. So ad. How low we have fallen. Even simple logic and common sense out the window. My dogs could have done better.

I could even see past them being apologists for this awful nonsense, but they do it so very,very badly. It is embarassing .

 

That's what I find most surprising. That wooden thing was in St. Peter's Basilica. They brought it into the Basilica, danced and sang songs before it with their backs to the altar where Holy Mass is celebrated, and days later they still can't come up with a definitive answer of what it represents. Isn't there anyone in the Vatican responsible to ensure that pagan idols are not venerated in the church build over the tomb of St. Peter who was crucified upside down by pagans?

 

Would I like it in my house?

Would I let it in?

Would my dogs?

How then did it end up in the Vatican?

 

Maybe a sham shaman sinod?

 

Their not even bothering to appear coherent is a reflection of the contempt they feel for the ordinary Catholic.

 

Yes he talked as if he were drunk. Nothing made any sense.

 

Yep, but he´ll have to wear a feather hat.

But he can play the guitar.



Well, he may have to do other stuff too.

 

I just met a Jesuit from cross the street who amazed me by agreeing with everything I said about this Synod. He usually hedges and ducks and dive when I bring things up.

He asked one clever question,

'Why was the Amazon Synod not held in the Amazon?'

Why not indeed? It would have saved millions on air fares for a start. The Jesuits are clever.

 

The answer is simple. It's much easier to bring Pachamamma to St Peter's than bring St Peter's to Pachamamma (apologies for that painful effort).