Lets look at a case of real irony, the case of another bunch of protesters who turned their backs on Rome and rejected Her teaching and split the Church into east and west 1000 years ago; the so called Russian Orthodox Church, it still holds the filoque to be heresy. This is not orthodox from our point of view. They are still not in full communion of Faith with Rome. Yet we call them Orthodox. You are utterly and completely wrong in this. He believed in the fundamantal truths but was not a fundamentalist. Your description is insulting his memory. Just as I believe in Tradition but am not a Traditionalist. Your description is very very wrong. You are simply using it to justify your stance.
You are not getting the argument Al, everyone's "orthodoxy" is in question if you don't agree with the pope.
That's the whole debate and discussion - are things as bad as it seems? That is the source of rancor on these threads. If things are NOT as bad as it seems, those of us fighting to maintain orthodoxy on the divorce and remarriage issue in regards to the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist are a bunch of judgmental troublemakers causing discord and destroying peace. If things ARE as bad as Cardinals Sarah and Burke and Bishop Schneider maintain and they're sounding the alarm to raise resistance to what has been done in the Synod and the changes that are imminent then our efforts here and elsewhere fall short of what is necessary in the face of this change.
Them let me repeat the question: If the Church publishes a document permitting the divorced and remarried, without an annulment or the firm purpose to live as brother and sister, to have access to the Holy Eucharist, will you oppose it? Yes or no?
Going off thread for a moment but that's better than going off my trolley as I have been with this forum and some of the recent comments. Thank God for my job. I often go online early in the morning and nearly make myself late. During the days I snatch a moment or two between patients to comment or look at what has been said. I have in my list a set of triplets and have just treated two of them. They are big boys, full of fun and 10 months old. They were just what I needed to take my mind off all this crap although their nappies were not short in that department either today. Mum says they all go at the same time and it's usually the worst time. I just have to explain to my next patient that the atmosphere when mum changes them in my clinic room is not due to me! That does not bother me at all and the look on mum's face as she tells me all about them is a joy to behold. It's also a reminder that life is not half as hard as it sometimes feels. Imagine raising triplets plus two slightly older ones. Now that's hard work. I have nothing to complain about, just a few contentious comments that do me no harm whatsoever. Don't know why I get so uptight with them. Maybe I am trying to save the commentators. But that is not my competence. Triplets are. My own little synod and all in communion with each other.
Yes because that would be a change in dogma but if they grant annulments Brian where will you stand then?
Oh please Joe, you've sunk to a new low. This is not a trick question. (And FS ain't Jesus, LOL!) Andy just answered it straightforwardly above: "Yes because that would be a change in dogma..."
Cardinal Burke and others have grave reservations about this new "annulment" process. We need to see how orthodox Canon lawyers sort out this question but I believe the changes to canon law to allow these new annulments were imprudent and will be reversed.
It seems to me that I have quite a bit to sink before I hit your level of faith Brian. Maybe like your average submarine Catholic your true faith will surface when you need air. Did Augustine not tell us " to be what we see and receive what we are". Do you really need to downgrade FS?
Does anyone know of any credible prophecies that have warned of the Pope going apostate or going bad? The only ones I can recall were MDM and LTTW (both were supported by many) and we know how they ended. One would think that if Pope Francis was leading the Church into error that heaven would be warning us, but it has been the opposite. Heaven seems to be blessing and healing some whom the Pope has touched.
Joe, you just denigrated my earlier post (and thus, me) by warning FS that my simple and straightforward question to him was like the Pharisees tempting Jesus, and when I pointed out how silly that post was, you attack me again by claiming I'm downgrading FS. Why do you feel it's ok to downgrade me and my Faith but it's not ok for me to point out that your statement to FS and more recent question was itself downgrading? Please Joe, be at peace. My Faith is strong, without it I couldn't face these difficult questions as well as the continued pushback they engender.
Pope Paul VI on the sixtieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1977: "The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church." Cardinal Ciappi, a distinguished theologian from the pontifical household from 1955 to 1989 who read the Third Secret, in a letter to a Professor Baumgartner: "In the Third Secret it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” These are two examples and I'm sure there are others, but I doubt the Vatican was likely to approve or publish any apparitions or locutions that express similar sentiments. (This could be why, as many claim, the Third Secret of Fatima was never completely revealed.) Regardless, there is nothing to prove these excerpts apply to any individual pope and I still cling to the hope that orthodoxy will win the day in the document to be released summarizing the recent Synod.
I wansnt trying to prove anything Joe.There is no need for this ..You are simply using it to justify your stance. Pope Francis speaks against those who will not bend to new ways . It is a fact Padre Pio would not bend to the New Mass. Why does this not qualify as rigid?
Yes Fatima, there are many prophecies with the Nihil Obstat, mostly from Saints, that predict that during this time (the time of the Chastisement) there will be a schism and an anti-pope. For the record I am not saying this is Pope Francis, just answering your question. A simple web search will turn them up. The book "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves DuPont and "Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph" by Desmond Birch have collected among other things many exacting prophecies detailing facts to help us identify the coming anti-pope. Here are some references: Yves Dupont {reader and collector of Catholic prophecies}: “prophecies are quite explicit about the election of an anti-pope…Many prophecies predict an anti-pope and a schism” (Dupont, pp. 34,60-61) Priest E. Sylvester Berry (20th century) As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, the prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of antipope during the vacancy of the papal throne . . .(Berry E.S. The Apocalypse of St. John. First published 1921. Yves Dupont {writer interpreting A. Emmerick}: They wanted to make a new Church, a Church of human manufacture, but God had other designs…An anti-pope shall be set up in Rome (Dupont, p. 116). Blessed Joachim (died 1202): Towards the end of the world Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See (Connor, p. 76). Gregory the Great, Pope (d. 604): In those days, near the end…an army of priests and two-thirds of the Christians will join the Schism. (Culleton, R. Gerald. The Reign of Antichrist, p. 122)
Mac. Again I must disagree with your view of Pope Francis. He speaks against those who show no willingness to even consider change where change is possible and necessary. SSPX comes into this unwilling category. It is Papal authority with that of the church which identifies such a situation where changes must be made and what should constitute those changes. The Church is not a democracy. I suggest that if the pope had refused dispensation from saying the novus ordo Mass to Padre Pio he would have obeyed and complied as he always did. This is the point of difference and the point of separation. Padre Pio was steadfast in his faith rather than rigid. I am fed up with treating Mac and Brian with kid gloves. With Brian he can dish out the insults but can't take the criticism. Now the gloves are off, Brian has accused me of insulting his faith. (Classic pot calling the kettle black) Brian has brought this on himself. I have not imposed it on him. A faith that calls itself Catholic yet despises and denies the authority and wisdom of the Pope and Bishops WITHOUT ACTUAL EVIDENCE is not worth anything. It has downgraded itself and down graded the person who professes such a faith. Such as faith has already been relegated to a lower order and is not the Roman Catholic Faith which is over all other faiths. Similarly the Church has bent over backwards to accommodate the ongoing schismatic actions and attitudes of SSPX only to be met with rejection and disrespect from them. Of course Padraig gave them a foot in the door, a foot that was attached to a concealed bulldozer that gives no quarter and stops at nothing as it tries to cover up the path that Pope Francis is making for the faithful and those who wish to return to the faith. I won't waste to much more time answering their troll-like comments or turncoat opinions. Most people on this forum can see through them. Even when the exhortation exonerates Pope Francis it will be rejected by the likes of Mac and Brian or twisted by them in order to sustain his condemnation. I think Padraig will be wiser. The only thing that can save Mac or Brian now is the Warning. I hope with all my heart that it does.
Padre Pio wrote this as a 15 year old, "[If I Were King] I would fight, first against divorce, which so many wicked men desire, and make people respect as much as possible the sacrament of matrimony.
