[1] Why does Freemasonry Openly Support Pope Francis?, Red Ice Creation, 2015-08-12 21:36 [2] Paul Simeon, does Freemasonry Openly Support Pope Francis?, Veritas Vincit International, August 8, 2015 [3] Michael W. Chapman, Pope Francis: ‘Masonic Lobbies … This Is The Most Serious Problem for Me’,CNSNews, August 2, 2013 | 6:06 PM EDT [4] Should we be worried that Pope Francis mentioned a masonic lobby in his famous press conference?,Catholic Herald, 2013/07/30 [5] TRULY ALARMING! JAW-DROPPING! The TRUTH Behind the Pope’s Visit to Israel! Is the Strong Delusion Coming Faster Than We Can Imagine? Pope Francis Freemason Mass in Bethlehem, Cenacle, the Coming Alien Invasion & STRONG Delusion, Before it’s News, Tuesday, May 27, 2014 19:16 [6] Betty Clermont, “Masonic Lobbies” Remark Reveals Pope Francis’ Darker Side, Daily Kos, Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:57 AM PDT [7] Argentine Freemasonry salutes Pope Francis, Tradition in Action, March 20, 2013 [8] Italian Freemasonry officially supports Pope Bergoglio, Tradition in Action, March 14, 2013 [9] Freemasons attending Pope Francis’ enthronement as Vatican’s Sovereign, Masonic Times, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 [10] Paul Simeon, Grand Lodge of Masons Buy Full Page Newspaper Ad to Welcome Pope Francis,Veritas Vincit International,, January 17, 2015 by 2014 ___ http://culturalmarxism.net/why-does-freemasonry-openly-support-pope-francis/
http://masonictimes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/freemasons-attending-pope-francis.html Freemasons attending Pope Francis' enthronement as Vatican's Sovereign 12:42:00 A He is not the first Catholic Pope to have Brethren attending his enthronement ceremony after being elected ruler of the Vatican State and spiritual leader of the Roman-Catholic Church. This is not a news for those feeling the need to consider it a conspiracy theory. Many of those attending the important event (both social and ecumenical - due to Patriarch Bartholomew's presence and of that of other Orthodox Churches ) were there as Ambassadors, Heads of State (Sovereigns and Presidents) and Government etc. Also the Grand Master of Malta was there, as the Sovereign Order of Malta is part of Rome's Chivalric Orders. Of all those in St. Peter's square one of the guests (head of state) is Most Worshipful Grand Master of a Grand Lodge.
More Masonic propaganda (population control to "save" the earth, i.e., temporal - and FAKE - secular humanistic issues placed above the eternal salvation of souls) embraced and trumpeted by the Vatican: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-only-controversial-presenter-lined-up-to-spe Vatican event features array of population controllers - and, it seems, no expert to counter them Shutterstock.com Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent February 3, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — International outrage is growing after the Vatican extended an invitation to population control pundit Paul Ehrlich to speak at a February 27-March 1 workshop on “Biological Extinction.” Ehrlich, a supporter of forced sterilization and forced abortion, has epitomized the “ecologist’s” position for decades in his apocalyptic (and false) predictions about the effects of population growth. Sponsored and organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS), the three-day conference also includes other controversial speakers besides Ehrlich, author of the Population Bomb. Several presenters have similar, if less well-known pedigrees, as proponents of population control or defenders of the idea that man is nature’s greatest enemy. Even more remarkable is the fact that no openly Catholic thinker or commentator capable of countering the population control agenda appears to be on the schedule other than Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of PAS and PASS, and Cardinal Peter Turkson, who is to give a concluding talk. Sorondo is scheduled simply to provide some words of welcome to the conference. Cardinal Turkson, head of the new dicastery created by Pope Francis for “Promoting Integral Human Development,” will address the symposium on the theme “The Effect of Biodiversity Losses on People: Moral and Ethical Dimensions.” The true moral and ethical dimension of the “sustainability” debate is nowhere to be found in the schedule or marketing materials for the event. The presentation booklet for the workshop sets out a purely evolutionist history of the Earth and of mankind, including warnings that “unsustainable” exploitation of natural resources by human beings started some 500 years ago. Along with Ehrlich, Cambridge University economics professor Sir Partha Dasgupta will speak on “Causes and Pathways of Biodiversity Losses: Consumption Preferences, Population Numbers, Technology, Ecosystem Productivity.” Dasgupta has written extensively against population growth, drawing a parallel between reduced fertility and increased riches and well being. He has been a speaker at the World Bank, where in 2003 he quoted “agricultural scientists” who “have drawn attention to the fact that future prospects of food being available to the world's poorest inhabitants depend critically on our ability to manage human numbers and natural capital.” Managing human numbers is no more and no less population control. His paper lauded China’s Human Development Index. The country’s brutal one-child policy held the population in check at the cost of millions of unborn lives, and today the ruling Communist Party is desperately seeking to increase fertility rates as the working population dwindles. A few years before that, Dasgupta offered his analysis of the “Population Problem: Theory and Evidence” in a paper published by the Journal of Economic Literature. In a lengthy discussion about ways to get human beings to want fewer children in order to bring fertility rates down, he concluded, “When a child becomes perceived as expensive, we may finally have a hope of dislodging the rapacious hold of high fertility rates.” Dasgupta is also a patron of Population Matters, formerly known as the Optimum Population Trust, which lobbies for a “sustainable population size,” including the “reversing of population growth” in many countries. URGENT: Ask Pope Francis to stop the scandal and disinvite radical population control activists. Sign the petition here. Especially troublesome is the fact that Dasgupta will summarize and conclude the Vatican workshop on March 1, getting the last word together with Peter Raven, a biologist who specializes in plants, butterflies, and evolution. One of Dasgupta’s three daughters, Aisha, is an impact manager at Marie Stopes International, one of the world’s largest abortion providers. She is lead demographer, especially interested by the link between development, environment, population and family planning. There is a connection with past workshops organized at the Vatican and Aisha Dasgupta. She has worked with Jeffrey Sachs (and his wife Sonia) at the Earth Institute. Sachs moderated and co-hosted a conference on climate change organized by PAS and PASS. Another speaker at the Vatican symposium is Lord Martin Rees from Cambridge University. The scientist proclaims “no religious beliefs at all,” but received the annual Templeton Prize rewarding “Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities” in 2011 for insights he brought into man’s perception of the dimension of physical reality. Rees is focused on the “disruption” man has brought to Earth by sheer numbers and gives only a “50-50” chance that civilization will extend past the 21st century. Then there is Mathis Wackernagel, whose talk has the sober title “Global footprint.” Along with Professor William Rees of the University of British Columbia, this Swiss-born advocate of “sustainability” invented the concept of man’s “ecological footprint,” which sees each human as a harmful predator whose impact on nature can be quantified and should be reduced. Wackernagel went on to create the Global Footprint Network. He also touts the notion of “Overshoot,” when a population exceeds the long-term carrying capacity of its environment. In an interview with The New Scientist in 2007, he said, “Overshoot will ultimately liquidate the planet's ecological assets.” Also a controversial figure and perhaps one of the most scandalous at the Vatican symposium is John Bongaarts, vice president of the Population Council. His subject will be “Population: Current State and Future Prospects.” The Population Council is a New York-based non-governmental organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III in 1952. Deeply rooted in the eugenics movement, it funded and developed the copper IUD, which acts as an early abortive device, and went on through the years to promote and research into long-term contraceptives such as Norplant, Jadelle and Mirena. In 1982, the French laboratory that developed the abortion pill RU 486 entered into a partnership with the Population Council to participate in pre-clinical tests in the U.S. In 1993, Roussel-Uclaf, the abortion pill’s owner, licensed what French professor Jerome Lejeune called the “anti-human pesticide” to the Population Council, ceding all its patent rights in 1994. In a recent article in Nature, Bongaarts slammed “traditional gender roles” as well as the Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception. He also wrote that “where legal, safe abortion services should be made available.” Preserving nature at the cost of man, pitting “biodiversity” against man’s God-given right to develop and thrive on the Earth that was given him from the beginning, and putting plants and animals over and above humankind are common claims on the “sustainability” agenda. Hatred of human life is at the center of the culture of death, and Paul Ehrlich has been at the heart of population control ideology that has impacted human laws, international institutions, and tyrannical governments. Can God have been wrong when he ordered mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” as his first commandment to Adam and Eve in Eden, where he placed the first man and the first woman as the masters of Creation? Population control means rejecting traditional religious condemnation of contraception, abortion and euthanasia. That is why the development of a new spirituality and world religion are part and parcel of many New Age “sustainability” proponents. The true thrust of “sustainability” is the promotion of the sort of nature worship that was so evident in the “Fiat Lux” show projected on Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome in 2015 to mark the ecological encyclical Laudato si and the United Nations’ COP 21 climate change conference on the reduction of carbon emissions.
Sorry, but this is most definitely NOT the work of Masons: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/m...is-conservative-criticism-intensifies-n716851 Mysterious Posters Take Jab at Pope Francis as Conservative Criticism Intensifies by The Associated Press VATICAN CITY — Conservative criticism of Pope Francis intensified Saturday after his intervention in the Knights of Malta order, with posters appearing around Rome citing his actions against conservative Catholics and asking: "Where's your mercy?" A paper sheet with writing in Italian reading "Illigal Posting" covers an anti-Pope Francis poster in central Rome on Feb. 4, 2017. Beatrice Larco / AP The posters appeared on the same day that Francis cemented his authority over the Knights by naming a top Vatican archbishop, Angelo Becciu, to be his special delegate to the ancient aristocratic order. Francis gave Becciu, the No. 2 in the Vatican secretariat of state, "all necessary powers" to help lay the groundwork for a new constitution for the order, lead the spiritual renewal of its professed knights and prepare for the election of a new grand master, expected in three months. The Vatican's intervention with the sovereign group had provided fuel for Francis' conservative critics, who until Saturday had largely confined their concern with his mercy-over-morals papacy to blogs, interviews and conferences. On Saturday, dozens of posters appeared around Rome featuring a stern-looking Francis and referencing the "decapitation" of the Knights and other actions Francis has taken against conservative, tradition-minded groups. Within hours, the city of Rome had plastered over the posters. Police launched an investigation into the conservative circles believed responsible, aided by closed-circuit cameras, the ANSA news agency said. Related: Knights of Malta Head Resigns in Spat with Pope Over Condom Scandal The posters, written in Roman dialect, also cited the way Francis had "ignored cardinals," a reference to the four cardinals who have publicly asked Francis to clarify whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion. Francis hasn't responded directly, though he has made it clear he favors case-by-case allowances. A passerby lifts a paper sheet covering an anti-Pope Francis poster to read it, in central Rome on Feb. 4, 2017. Beatrice Larco / AP One of the four cardinals is Raymond Burke, a conservative American whom the pope removed as the Vatican's supreme court judge in 2014 and named to be his liaison with the Knights of Malta. Burke, a staunch defender of Catholic doctrine on sexual morals, has become Francis' most vocal critic and was instrumental in the Knights' saga. With Burke's support, the Knights' grand master Fra' Matthew Festing sacked the grand chancellor, Albert von Boeselager, over a condom scandal. After learning that the ouster had been done in his name, Francis effectively took over the order. He asked Festing to resign, restored Boeselager to his position, declared all the Knights' sovereign decisions on the matter "null and void" and appointed Becciu to help run the order temporarily. Related: Pope Warns That Rising Populism Could Produce a New Hitler Becciu's mandate as the pope's "exclusive spokesman" with the order now confirms Burke's marginalization. In his letter Saturday, Francis said Becciu would work in "close collaboration" with the No. 2 official who technically is in charge at the Knights. The Knights are a unique organization: An aristocratic lay religious order that traces its history to the Crusades, the order runs a vast humanitarian organization around the world involving over 100,000 staff and volunteers. The order also enjoys sovereign status and has diplomatic relations with over 100 countries, the Holy See included.
These "save the world" types forget the world is not ours to save. The Vatican seems to have forgotten that as well.
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective939.asp Regarding Cardinal Müller and Amoris, Jimmy Akin Throws Up His Hands by Christopher A. Ferrara February 3, 2017 Jimmy Akin, a “Senior Apologist” for Catholic Answers, has spent the last several years writing one column after another concerning the latest Bergoglian bombshell under the running title “Things to Know and Share.” The number of “things to know and share” about what Francis has said or done on a particular occasion varies according to the difficulty of attempting to explain away the resulting scandal and confusion. But the latest installment of Akin’s whitewash series evinces a man who is completely stumped and doesn’t know which way to go. Akin has no fewer than twelve “things to know and share” regarding the development that my column addressed yesterday: i.e., Cardinal Müller’s stealth correction of Amoris Laetita (AL), which the Cardinal continues to pretend is perfectly sound and orthodox even as he denounces the very interpretation Francis has given it. By the end of his list of twelve things, however, Akin has tied himself into a knot and offered nothing but further confusion. Akin’s piece begins by grudgingly admitting in its subtitle that “It appears that Cardinal Müller has his own views about how ‘Amoris Laetitia’ should be interpreted and that these views differ from the way Pope Francis would like to see the document interpreted.” I say grudgingly, because Cardinal Müller has not given us his “views” but rather the authentic teaching of the Magisterium, which the Cardinal, most unfortunately, pretends is in no way contradicted or undermined by AL. Akin admits — in the second of his “twelve things to know and share” — that the interpretation of AL that would allow certain people living in second marriages to continue their relations while receiving Holy Communion “would be at variance with the historic Catholic understanding because such couples would not be validly married to each other and thus sexual relations between them would be adulterous.” Like Cardinal Müller, however, he fails to note that this is the very interpretation approved by Francis in his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires. “Things to know and share” nos. 3-11 shed no light on the controversy. Quite the contrary, Akin (at no. 6) professes to find “somewhat puzzling” Müller’s statement that “it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church.” Akin here quibbles about whether every objective mortal sin meets the conditions for subjective culpability (grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent), but Müller is obviously referring to the objective condition of adultery and the intrinsic impossibility that one continuously engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage can partake of the Blessed Sacrament while knowingly continuing to commit the same sin. And who doesn’t know that the Church, following the instruction of Our Lord, teaches that divorce and “remarriage” always constitute adultery? Near the end of his piece, having gotten exactly nowhere with his useless analysis, Akin (at no. 11) finally admits: “It therefore appears that Cardinal Müller is giving his own views about how the document should be interpreted and that these views differ from the way Pope Francis would like to see the document interpreted.” Exactly so! Except, as noted above, that Müller’s “views” are actually the irreformable teaching of the Church. And then we arrive at Akin’s simply ridiculous conclusion: “12) For the pope and the head of the CDF to disagree on a point like this seems very serious. What should we do? “Pray for them both — and for the Church as a whole.” Really? Pray for them both? Thanks for nothing, Mr. Akin. But a few obvious points present themselves: • Why should we “pray for them both” if Müller is correct that AL comports with his traditional interpretation of it? If AL is simply a traditional document, as Müller claims, what is there to pray for? We should, rather, give thanks that Francis has given us a totally traditional presentation of Church teaching. • On the other hand, if Francis, the author of AL, disagrees with Müller’s traditional reading of it, then AL can only be a heterodox document, in which case why pray for Müller as opposed to the Pope who has foisted a heterodox apostolic exhortation upon the Church? • If the Pope and Müller “disagree on a point like this,” is it not the case that one party must be right and the other wrong? • How do we know which party is right and which is wrong? Akin ducks all these questions by arguing that “Pope Francis has not issued an authentic interpretation of the disputed points in Amoris Laetitia, nor has he authorized the CDF to publish one.” So, Akin’s bottom line is zero: nobody — not even the head of the CDF! — can know what AL really means until Francis tells us what it really means via an “authentic” interpretation. But what if Francis never issues an “authentic” interpretation and simply allows his heterodox “private” interpretation to proliferate throughout the Church, winking, nodding, and otherwise hinting that this is exactly what he wants to happen? Or, even worse, what if Francis were to issue his “authentic” interpretation and it corresponded exactly to what he has written to the bishops of Buenos Aires: i.e., that certain public adulterers, based on “discernment,” may receive Holy Communion without ceasing their adulterous relations — thus overturning the contrary teaching of Benedict XVI, John Paul II and all of Tradition? How many things would Mr. Akin want us to “know and share” then? As we can see from Akin’s futile commentary, the Amoris Laetitia affair is as absurd as it is damaging to the Church. Such is the result of the pretense that a plainly heterodox document is either orthodox (Müller) or inscrutable (Akin). Never in 2,000 years has the Church been confronted with such a frightful mess emanating from the Holy See.
Putting it all out there again, to highlight that all these messages from Heaven were given so that we would be able to recognise it when it happens - which is now.
David, since you have taken on the mantle of the Pope's interpreter on the MOG forum, would you mind clarifying something for me? Does the Pope see a conflict between living by faith and keeping all the commandments? How could keeping all the Commandments paralyse us to the extent that we would be afraid to risk our mortal lives for the salvation of our immortal souls souls? We know for certain that nobody can claim to have never broken a Commandment because we're all sinners, so what's he getting at? Is he saying that it's wrong to strive to keep all the Commandments and to encourage others to do likewise? The Pope opened his homily by quoting Jesus: "He recalled that Jesus himself warned that those “who seek to preserve their life, without taking risks and always citing prudence, will lose it” I checked out the Gospels for any passages with that warning (couldn't find anything matching the Pope's quote about citing prudence). I can find nothing in any of those passages that suggests keeping all the commandments is a hindrance to living the faith. There's certainly nothing in there about keeping the Commandments resulting in shrunken souls, sinning against memory, courage, patience or hope. Here they are: The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 10: (Conditions of Discipleship) “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. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16: (Conditions of Discipleship) Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself,* take up his cross, and follow me.r For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.” The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 8: (Conditions of Discipleship) He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 9: (Conditions of Discipleship) Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit himself? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.p Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 17: (The Day of the Son of Man) Remember the wife of Lot. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. The Gospel of John, Chapter 12: (The Coming of Jesus' Hour) Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be. The Father will honor whoever serves me. “I am troubled now. Yet what should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But it was for this purpose that I came to this hour.
Well, Brian doesn't think this is the work of the masons. I wonder who he thinks IS responsible as it was most certainly a well organised little protest. Personally, I think the devil has rather shot himself in the foot with this one. We now know for certain that there is organised opposition to the Holy Father (if we didn't already know!). It will be interesting to see if a specific organisation is found that organised this particular action but I remain of the view it is the masons who are behind it. I wonder who the other critics of Francis think carried it out? Come on Dolours, as the most prolific critic of the Pope on the forum, you must have a view?
David, I was so pleased to see your reply to the thread because I was looking forward to finding out how the Holy Father managed to link being paralysed by keeping all the Commandments with what Jesus said about anyone who loves father, mother, son, daughter (and presumably partner in invalid sexual relationship) more than Him being unworthy of Him. Instead, I get an accusation that I'm the Pope's most prolific critic. How sad. Fortunately for me, Catholics are not obliged to like the Pope. We are obliged to love him as we must love all human beings by virtue of their being created in God's image and likeness but that doesn't stretch to adulation. We are also obliged to obey him but obedience doesn't mean accepting any teaching that conflicts with what the Church has taught as being true for all time. And obedience certainly doesn't stretch to remaining silent while others attempt to twist 2000 years of Church teaching to make something new appear compatible with it. All I want is a reassurance from the Pope that he believes in the Faith passed down through the generations and will guard and defend it as is his sacred duty. Answering the dubia would be a step in the right direction and calling off the hounds he has set against anyone who supports the dubia would be a bonus. As to the posters in Rome, I don't like them and consider them to be counter-productive if they are genuinely aimed at getting Pope Francis to answer the dubia. They could well be the work of Freemasons. I would be very surprised if there weren't Masons in any anti-Pope Francis groups, if such organised groups exist. I would also be very surprised if there weren't Masons among the Pope's inner circle. It isn't unknown for the Masons to have had a foot in every camp in conflicts. Wasn't that the case during and after the French Revolution? Anyway, people pinning up posters would be very low down the pecking order. Now, are you going to give me the benefit of your superior understanding of what the Pope means? I went to a lot of trouble typing those Bible verses.
Thank you, Dolours for at least attempting to answer my query about who was responsible for the Rome posters. But I think knowing who is responsible is less important than being aware of the nature of the opposition Francis is facing. As for your questions, let me explain that generally, now, I do not respond (or even read) questions about Pope Francis because when I did use to do so in the past, each answered question led to two new ones! And then I began to realise most of the questions were, to all intents and purposes, rhetorical ones. But as you did answer my question, let me attempt to reply to yours. The Pope was trying to explain the passage from St Paul. This involved his comment about 'following all the commandments' possibly paralyzing us. Pope Francis was not criticizing following the commandments but was more questioning our focus. Focus on doing good rather than avoiding things. What the Pope was talking about made me think of the passage from the Gospels where Jesus met the man who said he followed all the Law: If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18“Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, 19honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’” 20“All these I have kept,” said the young man. “What do I still lack?” 21Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” I think it is very difficult for you to understand what Pope Francis is saying in his homilies because you have distrust of him in your heart. That is the biggest problem.
Brian's posting of Ferrara's criticism of an article by Jimmy Akin was helpful for me because I would not otherwise have seen Akin's piece. To view the original article, rather than the criticism, go to: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimm...-amoris-laetitiae-12-things-to-know-and-share Akin's article is good but in the comments section at the end I found an even better commentary on Cardinal Muller's interview: Muller might not be as far away in his position from Francis as it appears at first glance. Let’s consider the following: 1) The entire interview is six pages long. Sandro Magister takes several passages and tells us that these are the relevant ones. Magister’s position is well-known, and presenting Cardinal Muller and the Holy Father on opposite sides helps his position. There are many ellipses (...) in key passages of the interview, perhaps Miller’s full position is not being presented accurately. 2) The translation appears clunkly at times. For example, the sentence, “The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church,” doesn’t make clear explicitly what he thinks should be happening. Is he saying that “the Pope SHOULD be interpreting the bishops, but instead in this case the bishops are interpreting the pope, which is an inversion of the correct structure”? It seems to me that’s the most reasonable way to interpret it. 3) If he is suggesting that the pope should be the one to interpret the bishops, then isn’t that basically what happened with the Argentine bishops? They wrote up a draft of guidelines, which they then submitted to the pope for his review and comments. He approved. Similarly, the Maltese Bishops drew up their guidelines, basing them on Amoris, the Argentine guidelines, and the Pope’s letter. It appears that he is criticizing bishops who write up guidelines without Holy See approval, such as Bp. McElroy in San Diego, or bishops who are judging or condeming the exhortation on doctrinal grounds, not those who seek approval from the Pope or CDF (at the direction of the Pope). 4) Francis has stated many times that Amoris does not constitute a change in doctrines or disciplines. Therefore, what is taught by Amoris Laetitia cannot be considered an exception, dispensation, or change to the moral law. This is, I believe, the hardest concept to understand in Amoris, and why the writers of the dubia are missing the point. What the pope is doing is advising pastors to prayerfully and honestly help discern the best way forward for someone in an irregular situation, because not every situation is covered by the law. It is very hard to wrap our minds around this, but I think Pope Francis is basically saying that if the priest and penitant have absolute moral certainty that the situation is not mortally sinful, then perhaps the sacraments will help the person in rare cases. It’s a serious responsibility and no one should take it lightly. But it is at least theoretically possible. 5) Muller says, “To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate.” Here is where I think he’s actually taking on the pope’s critics. Because a clear reading of Lumen Gentium 25 and Pastor Aeternus says that on matters of discipline and acts of the ordinary Magisterium (such as an Apostolic Exhortation) require at least some degree of religious assent and unity with the pope. That seems to be a direct shot at the Cardinals behind the dubia. 6) Likewaise the following passage seems to be a shot at Cardinal Kasper’s original proposal: “I would also advise not entering into any casuistry that can easily generate misunderstandings, above all that according to which if love dies, then the marriage bond is dead. These are sophistries: the Word of God is very clear and the Church does not accept the secularization of marriage. The task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity.” Kasper’s proposal, if you recall, was a “penitential path” where someone’s previous marriage is “dead” and they can work their way back to the sacraments without full complicity with Church teaching being the ultimate goal. This is not what Amoris proposes. 7) Furthermore, Muller states, “it cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church.” This seems to be in line with the longstanding practice of the Church, that one who is conscious of grave sin must confess before approaching the altar for Communion. We cannot say with absolute certainty that a grave sin is not a mortal sin, exonerate ourselves, and then go to Communion without confessing it. And Amoris doesn’t say this either—it does not mention just the Eucharist, but “the sacraments.” Remember, a divorced and civilly remarried person in a sexual relationship is not only barred from the Eucharist, but from receiving absolution in the confessional. Cardinal Muller, however, states that the sacrament of penance was instituted to resolve this contradiction. But if they’re ineligible to receive that sacrament as well, then why does he bring it up? Something doesn’t seem right here. Francis never says that someone who is not in the state of grace should can receive communion (Scicluna said the same thing), and the implication, I’m thinking, is that in every grave sin that someone in this sort of situation commits should be confessed before receiving communion. 8) In light of all this and the incompleteness of the transcript, I suggest we hold off on making any assumptions about Muller and Francis disagreeing.
The seeds of persecution have begun from within the Church. As the Church becomes more secularized from within and without those who hold orthodox beliefs are increasingly being marginalised and maligned. Cardinal Burke for example holds the same beliefs he had 5 years ago, 10 years ago and even 50 years ago with regard to orthodoxy and the faith. Something has shifted. Because today he is labelled as a conservative in opposition to the Pope when in fact he is orthodox. His belief has not changed. Nor does he oppose the Pope as some claim.
Thanks, David, for at least trying to explain. Your answer doesn't really explain how the Gospel passages that I quoted apply to the message in the Pope's homily but there's no point getting into argument about it. As to distrust in my heart, I was one of the gullible Catholics who believed all the hype and spin about the Holy Spirit inspiring the Cardinal electors to pluck him out of obscurity. The distrust came later and the more I saw of him, the more I found out about him, the less I liked or trusted him. At this stage, it wouldn't take much to convince me that his papacy is invalid. He is the source of my distrust, not that it would matter to him because as his friend Boff said, he wants to save the earth and doesn't care about the Church so he surely doesn't care what Catholics like me think of him. A few posters on Roman billboards aren't evidence of organised opposition to the Pope, especially considering how quickly they were pasted over by the Roman authorities as though they were expected. I'm reminded of that black Church in the US that was vandalised with graffiti supposedly from Trump supporters. Turned out the culprit was a member of the Church. The initial offence got widespread media coverage but there was little or no effort afterwards to correct their spin. Even if the culprits are people genuinely opposed to Pope Francis, it still isn't evidence of organised opposition. Clearly, there has been an orchestrated campaign to besmirch Cardinal Burke's name and reputation. It has been relentless and scurrilous, especially from some clergy and journalists, and often follows snide comments from the Pope. It all smacks of the gutter which is hardly surprising from someone singing the praises of Italy's Margaret Sanger. Cardinal Burke's conduct and demeanour have been exemplary. I notice that you have softened your judgement of Cardinal Muller since reading Jimmy Aiken's piece. You are very easily swayed.
Davidtlig I have not often posted but daily read over the posts. I am sorry to say I cannot agree with your post. The Holy Father has sadly promoted at best confusion. At worst I cannot even allow myself to consider. I Have no distrust in my heart towards our Holy Father and often seek shelter in the words of Fr Benedict. But if I may I confess to you my great confusion. I have struggled to see continuity in the teaching regarding sin - and its natural consequence. Marriage as Sr Lucia wrote is the final battle and what a battle it has unleashed. Bishop against bishop cardinal against Cardinal. This is a sign of the great apostasy the great rejection of Truth. Pope against Pope? You probably won't agree but St JPII and Pope Francis do not agree... And no amount of verbal gymnastics will change that. Within days of Trumps immigration policy the special prayers of Pope Francis relate to welcoming refugees. Yet we have endured the confusion over AL and chaos in the Church for more than 9months without clarification. You will not agree with me and I can honestly say that is difficult for me, I have the utmost respect for your defence of our Holy Father and have often prayed for you. I do not believe for even a moment that he is an anti- pope etc etc. However I do believe that under his magisterium a great divide has occurred that's consequence we today cannot measure. It is 2017 a year that casts a great shadow over recent human history. As this year commenced we endured yet another scandal with the Malta debacle a new US President great upheavals in politics and on and on it goes.. I would like to invite each member/anonymous reader to entrust to the great Mother of God a special prayer to end the confusion. Dearest Mother in this year celebrating 100 years of the Fatima visits -may the prayer of Pope Benedict XVI anticipating the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart be fulfilled. Help us dear mother to end the division and discord that have taken hold amongst us. Shield us from materialism egoism and revelatism. May you bring dear mother to each member/ reader the gift of the Holy Infant Jesus
I have no idea if seer Pedro Regis from Brazil is reliable but these messages he received sure seem prescient: Message 3276, June 2, 2010 The day will come when an apparently good and just man will appear. He will deceive many people, for he will realize great prodigies. He will come from the southern hemisphere and many people will consider him as a savior. Pay attention and don’t be deceived. Message 3098, December 23, 2008 …The Church of My Jesus will carry a heavy cross. The day will come when there will be two thrones , but only on one will be the true successor of Peter . It will be a time of great spiritual confusion for the Church. Stay with the truth. Listen to what I say and remain firm in the faith. Message 3148, April 17, 2009 Dear Sons and Daughters, an arrogant Pope will divide the Church. His orders will be obeyed and what is precious will be thrown out. A great spiritual confusion is on the way. Pray. You can only defeat the devil by the power of prayer. Stay with the truth and accept the Gospel of My Son Jesus. Those who remain faithful to the end will be saved. Message 3093, December 9, 2008 The smoke of satan has spread everywhere and My poor children have become spiritually blind. Very few will remain faithful to God. Pray. Pray. Pray. The Church of My Jesus will drink the bitter cup of pain. The throne of Peter will be shaken and there will be confusion everywhere. Through the merciful Grace of The Lord, a man will contribute to the return of My poor fleeing children, and truth will reign in the house of God. The day will come when he who is seated on the throne of Peter will change the path of the Church forever . Don´t flee from the truth. …The day will come when the Pope will be taken from his throne . The kingdom will be divided, with great spiritual confusion everywhere. Don´t lose heart. Stay with the truth and you will be victorious…
The Rome poster protest betrays self evident, well organised, professionally accomplished actions by a group of people. How big the group is remains to be seen. The groups beliefs seem to be identical to those of the conservative/traditional websites well known on this forum. The Cardinal does not come out well from the mainstream reports of what happened regarding the Knights of Malta. I hope for your sake and his that they prove to be not entirely accurate. I haven't changed in any way my judgement of Cardinal Muller's interview. It remains his own personal interpretation of the encyclical.
The confusion comes straight from the devil, not from Pope Francis. The Pope has indicated his interpretation of the encyclical as that explained by the Argentinian bishops and also the Maltese bishops. The confusion stems from a refusal to honour Francis in the role he has been given. The confusion will continue until people (including bishops) humbly listen to the Pope instead of their own intellect or other 'experts'. Websites like Lifesitenews and OnePeter5 have a big responsibility for the confusion in relentlessly spreading misleading and mistaken information.
Op-Ed: "A Violent Pope" - by Roberto de Mattei A Violent Pope? Against the evidence there is little to argue. The outstretched hand of Pope Bergoglio to the Society of St. Pius X is the sam, which has recently dealt blows to the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate. The story of the Order of Malta ended with the unconditional surrender of the Grand Master and the return of power to Albrecht von Boeselager along with the powerful German group he represents. The story was summarized in these terms by Riccardo Cascioli of La Nuova Bussola quotidiana: “the one responsible for the moral drift of the Order has been reinstated and he who tried to stop it was sent home”. This happened in full disregard for the sovereignty of the Order, as is clear from the letter of January 25, addressed to the members of the Sovereign Council by the Secretary of State Pietro Parolin on behalf of the Holy Father, through which the Holy See has in fact placed the Order into commission. It would be logical that the more than 100 States that maintain diplomatic relations with the Order of Malta would now withdraw their ambassadors, since, from the moment of the papal intervention, relations can be held directly with the Vatican, for which the order now depends on everything. The contempt which Pope Francis shows towards the Law extends to the international law as well as the Italian civil law. A decree issued by the Congregation for Religious with the consent of the Pope requires Father Stefano Maria Manelli, superior of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, not to communicate with the media, nor appear in public; not to participate in any initiative or meetings of any kind; and above all "to return, within the limit of 15 days from delivery of this decree, the economic assets managed by civil associations and any other sum that is at his disposal to the full availability of the individual institutes", that is, to donate to the Congregation for Religious assets of which, as was confirmed by the Court of Review of Avellino, Father Manelli does not have, because they belong to associations legally recognized by the Italian State. "In 2017, in the Church of Mercy," says Marco Tosatti, "the only thing missing here is the strappado (or the cord), and the iron mask, and the list is complete (referring to instruments of torture)”. What's more, Abp. Ramon C. Arguelles, Archbishop of Lipa in the Philippines, came to know of his resignation from a statement by the Vatican press office. The reasons for the decision is ignored but one can figure it out: Abp. Arguelles has canonically recognized an association that gathered a group of ex-seminarians of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who left the religious institute after the intervention in order to study and prepare for the priesthood in full freedom and independence. That however is a sin and one that is considered unforgivable. Hence the question arises whether Pope Francis is not a violent Pope, intending here the true sense of this term. Violence is not an exercise of cruel force, but rather the force that is being used in an unlawful manner, in defiance of the law, to achieve ones goal. The wish of Bp. Bernard Fellay to regularize the canonical position of the Society of St. Pius X with an agreement that nothing will undermine the identity of his institute is certainly commendable, but the question arises: Is it opportune to be placed under the legal umbrella of Rome in the very moment when the law is being ignored, or worse yet, being used as a means to crack down on those who want to remain faithful to Catholic faith and morals? - See more at: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/20...y-roberto-de-mattei.html#sthash.rfT3JvgJ.dpuf
Come on David, you are becoming nonsensical. Why would the masons complain about the church adopting/merging into it?
