Pope Francis refuses to provide clear guidance to American Catholics voting for President

As a principal agent of the Great Squander, he is well qualified to comment. When the so-called leaders of our religion are promoting the blessing of sodomy, a position of diametrical opposition to our God and all doctrines and beliefs of His Church, it is little wonder that the Mohammedans smell blood. The latter well know that a culture that apologises for sodomy and adultery, that facilitates the vilest abuse of the most innocent and even equivocates in some quarters upon their very slaughter, is nothing but a hollow shell that will disintegrate into pungent dust at the slightest violence. And so it is. Slit the throats of the citizens of Europe and what's their response-to wail 'Imagine' and condemn the Crusades.

 

Don't say that. Keep the Faith, no matter what they do in Rome.

 

That has me scratching my head.. There is hardly a hair's breadth between the beliefs and Sacraments of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. The idea of 'keeping the Faith' (albeit with ignoring the Pope and various members of the hierarchy) rather than being an Orthodox is an illustration of the extraordinary understanding of the Christian Faith showing itself on this forum.

 

The Orthodox permit divorce and remarriage. That's quite fundamental. Neither is the filioque a triviality.

Who here is ignoring the pope? And would you not consider it best to ignore members of the hierarchy that promote adultery, sodomy and, let's face it in some cases, child abuse?

Do you not see a contradiction in your blind loyalty on the one hand to Roman clerics and your disloyal minimisation of the differences between the Latin and Orthodox Churches, on the other?

Remember, the Catholic Church isn't a current fad. It is a continuum from the time of Our Lord. If I remain loyal to the Catholic Church of the second or seventh or eleventh or seventeenth century, I am a Catholic in good standing.

 

Because you and others repeatedly make the above statements over and over again, doesn't make them true! Your statement is completely untrue. You and the others are interpreting things in a completely mistaken way and you will never come to understand what the Church is teaching if you keep your minds and hearts closed. No doubt Dolours and others will come back repeating the same 'reasoning' that leads to the above false statement but you are just trying to convince yourselves. There are a few on the forum who think this way and you each reassure each other by repeating the same thing. But you are wrong and are expressing mistaken judgements which are harmful to those you apply them to.

 

I would have said the same until this charade that's being shoved down our throats in Jesus' name. I simply don't know what I will do if it comes to the push. How could any Catholic sit in the pews knowing that the Church founded by Jesus has decided to replace His very clear teaching on marriage with what men have decided he should have taught and would have taught had He been as merciful as them? There's a good chance that I will be pushing up daisies before the Orthodox start blessing sodomy and proclaiming those who practice and promote it as "saintly". A Church led by a Pope who promotes lust as love can't be following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox have Apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.

I sometimes wonder whether these members of the hierarchy actually believe that the Eucharist is in fact the Body and Blood of Christ and not just "a little bread and wine". If Jesus - the second person of the Almighty Triune God - were visibly standing on the altar in His glorified body as seen at the Transfiguration, would they be so quick to say that people didn't need to accept everything He said before approaching Him - that He will understand and accept their unwillingness to believe that He meant what he said about marriage and keeping His commandments? Would they tell Jesus to His face that a future without sex is too burdensome? Or would they do all in their power to protect Him from anyone who would challenge what He said about marriage and keeping His commandments if we love Him? Some of our Bishops do more to protect themselves than they do to defend the Body and Blood of Christ.

That said, we all must be careful that we don't fall into the category of those whom Jesus condemned for their lack of charity to the poor, the sick and prisoners, etc., but there's nothing charitable about false mercy.

 

Stay loyal to the Church of the Ages. Stick with the Gospels, the Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, Blessed John Henry Newman, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI. Vatican II, no matter its contemporary validity, is in essence already completely out of date and its misinterpretation, still unfortunately ongoing, is the great heresy of our time and possibly of all times. But these times will pass. I'm currently reading Newman's 'Arianism in the Fourth Century'. Many bishops apostatised and popes wavered in those times, but the ordinary people held on, at least enough of them. Here we go again.

 

I stand by every word. I am not trying to reassure myself, but trying to persuade you (and I consider it the height of arrogance for you to pretend to possess the supernatural power to judge the motives of others in this manner). This is obviously a waste of my time, so I'll say no more.

 

You keep repeating that others' minds and hearts are closed but you never come up with straight answers to any questions raised. I suppose you take your lead from Pope Francis who is rather fond of pointing the finger at Catholics trying their best to keep God's commandments while taking the cowardly route of burying in a footnote a radical change in the Church's teaching on marriage and sin.

If I were to go back to old posts of yours prior to the publication of Amoris Laetitia, would I find statements from you saying that the Pope had no intention of opening Communion to remarried divorcees? Would I find statements accusing the secular press of misrepresenting the Pope? Would I find statements saying that the Pope would never give any kind of approval to sodomy? Would I find statement accusing members of this forum of scaremongering/heresy/protestantism for even considering it possible that the Pope may be about to do all of the above? I think I would. We have a duty to respect the office of Pope. We have a duty to obey its incumbent. Our first duty, however, is to be true to the Faith which has never taught that either sodomy or adultery were acceptable.

 

Thanks DeGaulle. I'll hang on even if its by my finger nails. I keep reminding myself that there have been poor Popes and bad Cardinals in the past. I'm fortunate in belonging to a parish with good priests and being surrounded by parishes with equally good priests. My heart goes out to the minority in places like Antwerp and Vienna who must feel like they're living in a nightmare.

 

Not too long from now, the only choices available will be the Church and the anti-church. True Catholics will be driven underground and the apostate laity, priests, and bishops will follow the quasi-feel good-anything goes church. Pray for the many who will be deceived.

I truly believe that those on this forum are searching, questioning, and burning for the truth. The abomination of desolation (when the Eucharist is no longer present in the Mass), will make us hold on to each other for dear life.

 

Unfortunately, we may not have even the consolation of the internet. We'll be censored for 'hate-speech', so we must be prepared for great isolation. Our thoughts and inner prayer may be the only thing we'll be left with. It may not even be possible to hold a bank account, because such 'privileges', like Third World aid nowadays, may be accompanied by conditions.

 

I think we may have the consolation of being grantede advanced mysticla gifts, such bilocation , the pwoer to work Miracles, Prophecy and so on in order to surprise. Sadly our enemies may be provided with diabolic gifts as well.

 

Father Hunwicke seems to have been reading our minds. From his column today:

"PARRHESIA: Blessed John Henry Newman's views on aggressive insolent factions

Today, on this splendid Festum of Blessed John Henry Newman, I can think of no better, nor more relevant, topic for thought than our great Blessed's Parrhesia with regard to what magisterial authorities of the Church were up to in Rome.

Early in 1870, B John Henry received a letter from his bishop William Ullathorne about the disgraceful bullying going on at the [First] Vatican Council. He replied with words which became justly famous: "Why should an aggressive insolent faction be allowed to 'make the heart of the just to mourn, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful?'" ... words which spring easily to mind when one thinks about the synodical goings-on in Rome during this last couple of years and the Exhortation Amoris laetitia which emerged from those flawed processes. Seven months later, on 23 July, Newman saw the Definition of papal infallibility five days after it had passed through the Conciliar Aula. He was relieved, even delighted, at its "moderation"; it afforded him no problems; but "does it come to me with the authority of an Ecumenical Council?"

Newman did not instantly accept it as such. He wanted to know what the conciliar minority would do. This was important, because unanimity, at least 'moral' unanimity, was accepted as essential for the validity of a conciliar definition of doctrine. If the Fathers "allege in detail acts of violence and deceit ... if they declare they have been kept in the dark and been practised on, then there will be the gravest reasons for determining that the Definition is not valid."

We may not possess 'our Cardinal's' immense erudition. But we are subject to the same moral imperatives as those by which he was moved to speak as he did.

After Vatican II, Cardinal Heenan (who deserves rehabilitation; he was an Archbishop of Westminster a cut above most of them) complained (Sire pp 200-201) that "During the last two weeks of the Council the fathers were called upon to cast their votes before they could possibly have studied the text and context, much less the implications, of the amendments".

Sadly, the Fathers of Vatican II, who were indeed subjected to acts of violence and deceit, kept in the dark and practised on, made no such corporate protest as would (in Blessed John Henry's view) have nullified the Council. Nor, even more sadly, did Parrhesia move them to make formally any individual protests. Even Archbishop Lefebvre's subsequent repudiations of the texts he had signed were not articulated until it became clearer, well after the Council, whither the Church was being led. Let us not condemn these men; it is easy for us very much lesser men to be wise half a century after the event. But the fact remains: they did not protest; they did not repudiate.

Not, of course, that this failure to protest mattered or matters too desperately, since Vatican II, unlike Vatican I, claimed to define no dogmas. Even less competent is a Synod (still less a mere episcopal Conference) to assert doctrinal or legislative authority. Nor, as I have repeatedly pointed out, does an Exhortation ex sese have exalted Magisterial authority. If it repeats what the Church has immemorially taught and practised, then it is for that reason magisterial; if it were to bear manifest signs of shameless rupture (and I don't think Amoris laetitia does that), the reader would have to draw the necessary conclusion and repudiate it.

But what if such a document appears to hint at, to leave a loophole for, to wink salaciously in the direction of, the new, the heterodox, the ruptured? In this case, we should interpret and accept it solely in terms of previous magisterial documents which we can employ to clarify its ambiguities and fill up its lacunae ... while regretting that our Holy Father was too timid, possibly even too craven, to use this opportunity to speak, with Parrhesia, that Truth which is in Christ; the Truth which is Christ; the Truth of whom the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar. We should most certainly not behave like the Graf von Schoenborn, who at that News Conference condescendingly talked about 'Development', dishonestly mentioned Newman, and disgracefully shut Parrhesia down.


This is a time when we, laics and clerics and bishops, are called upon to speak with the same Parrhesia that Blessed John Henry employed. If Eminent gentlemen who, in Newman's words, wear the royal hue of empire and of martyrdom, attempt to bully, to intimidate, to misuse their status to silence any who speak out, we should remember 'our Cardinal's' condemnations of an aggressive insolent faction.

We have the Holy Father's own reiterated encouragements of Parrhesia as our defence and inspiration. Not to mention Canon 212."

[Interestingly, I had no idea whatsoever that today is the feast of Newman, but last night felt impelled, from a choice of hundreds of actual books on my book-shelf and virtual ones on my Kindle and pc, to read his 'Arianism in the Fourth Century' (I tend to lean towards reading virtual books at the moment, as I fear they may eventually be deleted somehow, either through tyrannical technology or natural-or supernatural?-electromagnetic catastrophe. Hopefully, the real books might be hidden somewhere, if necessary. Either way, I intend to transfer as much Catholic Faith and Reason between my ears while I can).

 

The end of MOG.

 

We're still here, yet...Aren't we?

Regardless, we'll always have the Mother of God.

 

How long is not too long? There have been radical changes in the Church over just a few decades. Those with the greatest responsibility to defend the faith are bent on dismantling it and fragmenting the Church. A single document from this Pope is ushering in the shelving of Church Doctrine on marriage. Cardinal Schonborn is something of a celebrity among those whose aim is to have the Church extend sacramental marriage to homosexual couples. Any web search for Cardinal Schonborn will produce sites where they are praising his efforts in converting the Church to their beliefs. To them this new approach by the Church is a leap forward towards their ultimate goal. Note that their ultimate goal is converting the Church and there's not a mention of their conversion. As far as they are concerned, the Church is wrong, has been wrong and will be wrong until we all accept that Jesus didn't really mean what he said and that St. Paul and St. Peter were mistaken or misquoted. They would have us rewrite the bible and some Protestant sects are already doing so.

Cardinal Schonborn and others (especially some South American Bishop whose name I don't recall) claim that they have changed their attitude to homosexual unions due to personal encounters. The South American Bishop's brother is homosexual. Cardinal Schonborn's parents were divorced and he had a homosexual friend who played the field and eventually settled for one partner. On foot of those personal experiences, they have set about changing Church teaching on marriage and sexual relations. What about these words of Jesus: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Are the feelings of the Hierarchy's relatives and friends more important than the words of Christ?

Cardinal Schonborn and others are promoting this change in "pastoral practice" as a step towards converting people whose irregular unions are a public witness to their rejection of Church teaching on marriage and sexual morals. It looks to me like it's the Cardinals and Church leaders who are being converted. No good can come of pastoral practice belying what the Church has always declared to be the Truth and anyone who thinks it can is deceiving himself.

 

Speculation...and many of us interact with homosexuals or lesbians. Never had the cross dresser and seen very few. But all the arguments are based on things that haven't happened yet.

 

Same sex 'marriage' has been written into the Constitution here in Ireland. So, I think we can agree that it has happened. This would have been wild 'speculation' twenty years ago. If one had suggested it, one would have been laughed out of court. Once respectable Protestant Churches have 'ministers' who proudly engage in domestic homosexual 'bliss', all blessed by their denomination. This is happening and this is what some wish for the last hold-out, the Roman Catholic Church. How do you know this won't happen? Or perhaps you will be content with it?

As for interacting with homosexuals and lesbians, that has always been so, but now we are supposed to stand back and applaud. Or else. Cross-dressers might be few and far between, but many governments are dancing to their tunes. Never had so few, and so insane, had such influence so disproportionate to their numbers. And it is all due to a carefully planned, and brilliant, propaganda programme deliberately targetting emotions and downgrading the use of rational argument.

Will God be called upon to apologise for Sodom and Gomorrah?