Those days are long past. When one takes the words and actions and appointments of this papacy as a whole, one grasps how to read Amoris. And it’s NOT through rose colored glasses. Besides which, don’t just listen to what he says, keep an eye on what he does, i.e., WHO he consistently appoints to positions of power and influence. With this Vatican, “Personnel is policy.” Period.
Hello Mark - welcome -- We pray and sacrifice for Pope Francis on this forum. There are many members going through real tough times temporal and spiritual, so many opportunities to offer up for the mystical body. There is a sifting going on. Our rock is Christ. It is is His Church and He is in charge. God has allowed this crisis in His providence ultimately for the superior good of souls. The 'modernist' crisis that the church is enduring at present like the Arian crisis of old needs to be confronted and defeated. Modernism comes masked under the umbrella of ambiguous language and formulas -- is it not a duty for those who love the truth to challenge those in charge to teach the faith clearly and concisely including all bishops, cardinals and the Pope? We are only a small forum like a small voice 'crying in the wilderness'. The crisis is real, it is deepening and soon we will be like sheep scattered and without a shepherd. Active devotion and personal consecration to our Lady is the only path I see out of the present crisis in the Church.
I wrote about these very things today: https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2019/02/11/only-jesus-walks-on-water/ You'll read some very telling things also about who is advising the Pope. But I might add in consideration of balance that Francis also appointed some very orthodox men: Cardinal Marc Oulette, Cardinal Thomas Collins, Cardinal George Pell, Cardinal Sarah, and Cardinal Raymond Burke to the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court in the Vatican. This does not lessen valid concerns over some odd and troubling appointments. But if "Personel is Policy", we are left with more questions than answers. For my part, I'd rather spend my time ministering to others than concocting a conspiracy of ill-motives by the Holy Father. I hope and pray his motives are good, and I assume so. But that does not mean he cannot be misguided.
Yes, we won't get through this except by supernatural grace. All of this—Pope Francis' reign included—lies within the plans of Divine Providence. For our part, let's pray for the Pope and be faithful ourselves. Our little ramblings here aren't going to dissuade the dark forces at work in Rome, but they can help us become an army of light, with Our Lady's help. Pax.
One need not “concoct conspiracies,” just know their Faith and listen to what’s being said and who is being advanced to know something is seriously amiss. The actions of this papacy have caused MANY faithful, well catechized Catholics to question Christ’s promises to His Church regarding the papacy and magisterium. Some are even leaving the Faith over this papacy. Friends have already left the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy over this papacy. You do a grave disservice to them when you throw baseless charges of “concocting conspiracies “ at good faithful Catholics whose questions are fully justified.
Unfortunately, that's precisely what many are doing, though (concocting conspiracies such as the Pope's election is not valid). It's a grave disservice to the unity of the Church. The Petrine promises of Christ are always true, always valid. Those who leave the Church over a wobbly Pope are, I'm afraid, not "well catechized." If they were, they would never leave, as schism itself places one's salvation at risk. In some ways, this trial is good because it's testing the faith of many—and whether that faith is in a man and an institution, or in Jesus Christ. In a personal letter to me this week, Fr. John Hampsch wrote: "To obey the Gospel implies heeding the words of Jesus—for his sheep listen to his voice (John 10:27)—and also the voice of his Church, for “whoever listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). For those who renounce the Church his indictment is rigorous: “Those who refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a pagan” (Matt. 18:17)… God’s battered ship is wildly listing now, as it often has in past centuries, but Jesus promises it will always “stay afloat”—“to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Please, for love of God, don’t jump ship! You’ll regret it—most “lifeboats” have no oars!" Good pope. Bad pope. In the end, we know the teachings of the faith; they are in our Catechism. And we know who is Lord of the Barque, and our faith should be in Him. There is only one Church, and it will be here long after Francis has passed on.
I’m surprised you would say something so devoid of charity, Mark. It’s precisely BECAUSE they were well catechized, and cannot square the heterodox words and bad actions of this papacy with Christ’s Petrine promises, that they left. You’re not doing yourself or your readers any favors with this line of attack.
In fairness to the Masonic teaching that all religions lead to God, should we not give them a pass also, as many are trying to do with Pope Francis signing declaration that "diversity in religion is God's will" that they too mean "permissive will". What I find most interesting is, it is not the pope who clarifies his words, whether it is from the Dubia Cardinals or now this apparent Freemason signing declaration , rather he allows the public to do self interpretation. Why? Is this God's will? Is it not church teaching that a valid pope cannot teach heresy or sign on to a heretical statement?????
No, if they were well-catechized (and if they weren't, blame for that can fall a great deal upon the clergy), then they would know that popes are only infallible in matters ex cathedra, not plane interviews. They would know that leaving the Church is a grave sin. It is charitable, in fact, to remind those who want to jump ship of these facts. What we ought to do is help them to realize that Jesus will never abandon them and that, even now, the truth of Catholicism remains wholly intact. One can remain in communion with Pope Francis and still enter into "fraternal correction." Paul did not leave the Church when Peter was in the midst of his "pastoral" guffaw. Rather, he met met him face to face and told him he "was not in line with the Gospel." It seems the capacity to have this same attitude of fraternal love is not possible for some. We must either have a theologically pristine pope, or we burn him at the stake. I think there is a middle ground, and it's called Christian love.
The only area in which the Holy Spirit keeps a Pope from making a mistake is within an extremely narrow area. THAT IS WHEN: 1) THE POPE IS SPEAKING TO THE WHOLE CHURCH, 2) FROM THE CHAIR OF PETER, 3) ON A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS, 4) AND HE STATES WITH ABSOLUTE CLARITY HIS INTENTION IS TO BIND THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH TO THAT TEACHING ON FAITH AND MORALS. In all other matters Popes can and have made mistakes. This is one of the Church’s most basic teachings about the Papacy (Desmond A Birch)
Well, if you read my writing today that I linked above, you'll see I did not give a pass to the Pope on this. Also, you would have read Our Lady's words that give an explanation as to why God is permitting this trial: "In order to free men from bondage to these heresies, those whom the merciful love of my Most Holy Son has designated to effect the restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence in God. To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions when all will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration." —Our Lady of Good Success to Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, on the Feast of the Purification, 1634; cf. catholictradition. org Christ did not promise that the Church would be without its wolves, apostasy or trials. Quite the opposite. What He promised is that He would remain with us until the end of time.
But Pope Francis had a golden opportunity to clarify the ambiguities and apparent contradictions by responding to the Dubia. He chose not to do so. What are we to make of this open snub to Cardinals? There aren't many credible reasons for a refusal to provide a response to this invitation to provide clarification: Arrogance? That various interpretations were intended? I cannot envisage ONE positive reason for this open insult to several 'Princes of the Church'. I can imagine the very real difficulties of those whose living depends upon the approval of the hierarchy or upon retaining the support of the widest possible range of opinion in the Church and, in such a position, I admit that I should be tempted to rationalise such extreme behaviour and to 'stretch' things as far they could possibly be stretched in order not to alienate others. Happily, many of us are not in that difficult situation and can say what seems to us to be clearly proven by omission and in so many other ways.
I haven’t read it as yet Mark. I will. I’ve read and enjoyed many of your columns in the past, but not the ones referred to here on MOG most recently. So I can’t speak to those either. Our church is so split because of the confusion Pope Francis has created. He compounds the damage when he refuses to address legitimate attempts to clarify his words, writings etc. Dr. Taylor, in a previous video, remarked how he found himself repeadly acting as a apologist for Pope Francis. Each time he did, he found himself conflicted with his own justification. He now is saying that he can no longer act in that capacity...that he will call the pope out as he has crossed the line too many times. The pope provokes those who have tried to excuse or defend him to the point that they will no longer ignore the dissent, they will expose it. Pope Francis seems oblivious to any questions...or criticisms himself. He refuses repeated opportunities to explain or correct. I guess like so many others here, or in the “catholic world” who have tried to give PF the benefit of the doubt, find myself unable to any longer. I’m not sure he cares....as evidenced by the fact that he simply ignores all of the clamor...and continues on with more of the same....as one who occupies the seat of Peter is privileged to do. Folks like us, watching our church’s teachings perverted, feel a moral imperative to speak to these concerns. There is no greater threat to our eternity than to witness the truths of our faith being turned upside down. The pope can correct this and end these controversies today if he so chooses... Sadly, it appears that he could care less. What else is there to do. Silence =consent. We simply cannot remain silent. I do believe that you, as well as others like Dr. Taylor have been trying to maintain objectivity...but the Pope’s “grace” period is over for a lot of us Mark. I’m a nobody...looking for the strong leadership of educated laypeople like yourself to join together to help unite us...and lead us through this apostasy... As it appears to many of us to be. I’d really rather be wrong here Mark....sincerely. Blessings.
For whatever reasons unknown to us, Francis did not directly answer the dubia. One can speculate as to why. Vatican Insider suggested that Francis did respond when he said: "The Church exists only as an instrument for the communication of God’s merciful plan to the people. During the Council, the Church felt it had the responsibility to be a living sign of the Father’s love in the world. In the Lumen Gentium, it went back to the origins of its nature, the Gospel. This shifts the axis of Christianity away from a certain kind of legalism which can be ideological, towards the Person of God, who became mercy through the incarnation of the Son. Some still fail to grasp the point. They see things as black or white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern." —see La Stampa That is to say that the Pope is forcing those whom he deems legalists to a position less so (and not necessarily the Cardinals who presented the dubia, but those who would double-down on a legalist mindset if the dubia were answered). Is this a good pastoral decision? History will judge that. I would prefer that the Pope answer the dubia since the Cardinals presented their concerns precisely because of the ensuing confusion.
Thanks Beth. I won't repeat what I wrote in today's blog since it responds to what you're saying. In fact, you'll find that I feel much the same as Dr. Taylor in that regard in so far as being a bit tired out...
HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers. In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.) Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
Legalism? “Thomas More: ...And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.” ― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
