Cardinal Cupich is being setup to look like a hero in this next article imho. I suppose that I keep thinking about the link that Padraig recently posted about the top 10 Papabile Popes-To-Be https://www.thetoptens.com/papabile-pope-be-after-pope-francis/. I read the following headline today Archbishop Anthony Fisher, the Aussie who could be pope but I don't have access to read the article . Archbishop Fisher recently spoke up about the Youth Synod so he may be a good a choice for the next pope (?), Australian archbishop outlines problems with Youth Synod and its final document . I think it will be interesting to hear what the Church Militant will report in regard to the following story considering that they were a big organizer in the prayer gathering that is taking place outside the USCCB meeting this week. I'm joining Father Heilman in prayer for the bishops, Day 1 – Novena to Pray for Strength, Humility and Resolve for Our Bishops In addition, I had the same question that Picadillo posed above in regard to this story, Vatican cancels US bishops’ vote on sex abuse reform measures A view of St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City. Credit: Bohumil Petrik/CNA. By Ed Condon | https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...shops-vote-on-sex-abuse-reform-measures-13052 Baltimore, Md., Nov 12, 2018 / 07:57 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference has told the American bishops that they will not vote on two key proposals which had been expected to form the basis for the Church’s response to the sexual abuse crisis. The news came at the beginning of the U.S. bishops’ conference fall general assembly, meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-14. The instruction to delay consideration of a new code of conduct for bishops and the creation of a lay-led body to investigate bishops accused of misconduct came directly from the Holy See, DiNardo told a visibly surprised conference hall. DiNardo said that the Holy See insisted that consideration of the new measures be delayed until the conclusion of a special meeting called by Pope Francis for February. That meeting, which will include the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences, will address the global sexual abuse crisis. Apologizing for the last minute change to the conference’s schedule, he said had only been told of the decision by Rome late yesterday. Ahead of the bishops’ meeting, two documents had been circulated: a draft Standards of Conduct for bishops and a proposal to create a new special investigative commission to handle accusations made against bishops. These proposals had been considered to be the bishops’ best chance to produce a substantive result during the meeting, and signal to the American faithful that they were taking firm action in the face of a series of scandals which have rocked the Church in the United States over recent months. Speaking before the conference session had even been called to order, DiNardo told the bishops he was clearly “disappointed” with Rome’s decision. The cardinal said that, despite the unexpected intervention by Rome, he was hopeful that the Vatican meeting would prove fruitful and that its deliberations would help improve the American bishops’ eventual measures. While DiNardo was still speaking, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago intervened from the floor, expressing his support for the pope. “It is clear the the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously,” Cupich said. At the same time, he suggested that the work which had gone into preparing the two proposals should not go to waste. Cupich suggested that if the conference could not take a binding vote, they should instead continue with their discussions and conclude with resolution ballot on the two measures. This, he said, would help best equip Cardinal DiNardo to present the thought of the American bishops during the February meeting, where he will represent the U.S. bishops’ conference. “We need to be very clear with [DiNardo] where we stand, and be clear with our people where we stand,” Cupich said. While acknowledging that the February meeting was important, he noted that responding to the abuse crisis “is something we cannot delay, there is an urgency here.” Cupich went on to propose moving forward the American bishops’ next meeting, currently scheduled for June 2019. Instead, he suggested, the bishops should reconvene in March in order to act as soon as possible after the February session in Rome. *** I recently watched the 1967 film Far from the Madding Crowd and Father Goring's latest video above reminded me of the following scene in this movie when an inexperienced sheepdog leads all of the shepherd's sheep right off the cliff . Edited to add the following story from November 2nd: Two Chinese priests placed in detention Underground church crackdown in Hebei province sees more than a dozen religious venues being reportedly seized https://www.ucanews.com/news/two-chinese-priests-placed-in-detention/83786 PS - I am very, very thankful for Father Mark Goring and other clergymen like him!
In our case it seems in some ways that instead of inexperienced sheep dogs we have wolves guarding the flock.
Clever move by the Vatican to blindside DiNardo and those who want to clean out the filth. Looks like Cupich knew about it before DiNardo and DiNardo didn't have a chance to consult with the clean Bishops on how to respond. The secular officials are only interested in the abuse of minors. They aren't interested in seminarians who have reached the age of consent. They aren't interested in which Bishops were promoted because they were sexually active (either homo or hetero) and were in league with McCarrick. They aren't interested in the Curia's lavender lobby. They have no authority to examine the records in the Nunciature even if those records haven't been destroyed or sent to Rome. Maybe they will go after the seminary for sex trafficking but they might not pursue it if the seminarians were over the age of consent. A group of qualified American lay Catholics could have demanded to see the files and raised a stink if permission were denied. Cupich is safe. McElroy is safe. Tobin is safe. Farrell is safe. Members of the lavender mafia running the seminaries are safe. If DiNardo isn't replaced by a one of McCarrick's proteges or collaborators before the February Synod, he will be only one clean Bishop out of who knows how many who are either homosexual themselves or are enablers. People are demanding that DiNardo defy the Pope. Doing that leaves him vulnerable to the mercy axe and replacement by a Cupich or another like him. Even if a majority of Bishops defy the Pope and go ahead with a binding vote, the minority will use loyalty to the Pope for refusing to co-operate. The February Synod will stick to the abuse of minors, using the customary Francis/Jesuit double speak to make it appear that the lavender lobby is being investigated. Most likely there will be a new "abuse" discastry set up, and we only have to look at the Pontifical Academy for Life to see what type of people he will appoint. He put abortion supporters on that Academy, so he will put active homosexuals and their supporters on any committee set up to investigate what he likes to call "clericalism". Expect to see Jesuits on that Committee or Council. Don't be at all surprised to see a homosexual US Bishop on the Council. Any laity will be of the calibre of the piano player or people (more than likely some women) who support the lavender agenda. With the American Bishops whipped in line, the Vatican has until February to concoct a story blaming Pope John Paul for the rise of McCarrick and his ilk. And they have plenty of time to get their ducks in a row demonising Archbishop Vigano. The only pressure the Americans could hope to apply would be to put a stay on all funds going to Rome. Cupich & Co would kick up a stink over that, and there would be no shortage of Bishops from poorer regions complaining about the mean, rich, racist Americans pulling funds from their poor and homeless because the bullying Americans have a grudge against the Pope. (Think refugee caravan and the villain Trump telling them to take the legal route). And there will be no shortage of American Catholics joining in the chorus of condemnations.
Spot on and all excellent well thought out points Dolours. I think you are correct, right down to the purse strings. I think this will increase as time goes on especially if as you predict the whitewash continues. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...hops-website-presents-fr.-martin-in-oppositio I don't think the mean, rich, racist Americans line will get much traction with anyone who hasn't been thinking that for some time now anyway but maybe so. It won't matter, in fact it may make it worse in some ways. People will continue to find ways to help others outside the pleas and threats of the Bishops. Of course, they have already lost a quite significant amount of money with the government refugee relocation programs decreasing.
Carol, it looks like the article you posted (which I took excerpts from) is referencing the Youth Synod. What I am responding to here could not be more true, especially in SOME NOT ALL parishes.
I think US law will come after American bishops pretty soon. Our priest yesterday said Maine went face a grand jury b.c. because our Bushop back in 2002 asked the Attorney General to investigate and opened up the records. Our current Bishop is a canon lawyer who worked for Cardinal Ratzinger. I think we have some grace at work here. I hope. But PF puts Am. BISHOPS in a terrible position. May I say that I hope C. Cupich is the first to be investigated.
Dolours, This is a very good article that you posted a link to above, thank you. There is a lot to take in but since I recently watched the video which Mac posted of Diane Montagna's recent talk on the Youth Synod and I remembered some of the things that she stated when I read this article from Dr. Douglas Farrow. Dr. Farrow went into much greater depth about many things that are occurring regarding the current papacy but for those who don't have the time or the inclination to read his article I would suggest that at minimum they watch from @ the 1:00:00 mark in the video that Mac posted which I am replying to my next post. First, I would like to highlight the following quotes from Dr. Farrow's article. .. Vatican I had to defend the papacy against Gallicanism and other forms of nationalist idolatry that were threatening to ruin the Church by taking it captive to human and even to demonic agendas. Its defenses still stand, and they can and should be held against the globalist and inclusivist idolatry – the pseudo-Catholicism of the new anti-colonial colonialists – that threatens the Church today. What is happening instead is that the latter has penetrated the Church’s defenses as far as Rome itself. But is that, as De Mattei seems to believe, because Vatican II dismantled the defenses? Or is it because the Church is still being tested in regard to the real object of its faith? ... I agree with De Mattei that this caveat has never been more important, for (despite the saeculum obscurum of the tenth century and the Great Schism of the fourteenth and other dark times) never before have we endured a pope who, qua pope, sits so loosely to established doctrinal and moral judgments of the Church, refusing to guard them scrupulously and quite evidently favouring change. In the pontificate of Francis we have already witnessed three synods and numerous personal statements and actions designed to relax those judgments, all under what John Paul II called the sign of mercy (cf. UUS 93). The problem we face today, however, does not lie in a pontiff determined to complete the work of Vatican II, and of his immediate predecessors, by seeking a more modest papacy and a more modest Church. It lies rather in a pontiff apparently quite willing to ignore Vatican II and his predecessors where it is convenient to do so, and to expand, rather than contract, papal power over both doctrine and practice, on the way to that relaxed, indeed, deracinated Church and papacy that the St-Gallen plans called for. Which in its own odd way confirms that reform was and is needed. It has been needed, I think, for a very long time. Without detracting from Gregory VII’s achievements, the path marked out in the Dictatus Papae did not provide a solid foundation for the unity of the Church and for its good governance. Despite the fact that the Church has been blessed with many fine popes and some wonderfully productive pontificates, not to speak of the remarkable achievements of its modern councils, it has not yet managed, on that path, to make of the papacy the instrument of unity it ought to be. John Paul II said as much in Ut unum sint. So the question is: what kind of reform do we really need? ... These are questions I am not fully competent to answer. I will venture to say, however, that any attempt to decide what kind of reform is needed must take into account that the larger ecclesial crisis we face is a crisis of morals even before it is a crisis of doctrine or of ecclesial institutions. The truths reprised in Humanae vitae and Veritatis splendor have been and are being rejected, not for doctrinal reasons – though there are false anthropologies and heretical theologies at play in their rejection – but for personal reasons, reasons primarily of sexual license and especially of homosexual license. Here we must not forget that “standing fast” includes, and has always included, adherence to the biblico-dominical moral tradition and to the liturgico-doxological tradition of the ancient Church. Abandon either of those, and doctrinal traditions are sure to be abandoned as well, leading eventually to a full-blown crisis of authority. It follows that the first step towards reform must be a decisive step towards both moral and liturgical discipline. God must once again be honored and obeyed as God – that, and nothing less, is right and just! It is the common failing of recent pontiffs that they did not take such a step but, even in the matter of episcopal appointments and the selection of cardinals, permitted the drift into corruption to continue. So long as this corruption remains, no authentic reform is possible. ... I have not forgotten that we cannot go backward in history, and I am not saying that Peter redivivus would or could ignore what has been achieved in two millennia of Christianity. I am not proposing a reform that is, in its own way, a down-grading of the papal office. I am proposing that the reform we need is in the direction of simplicity, transparency, and integrity – what many thought we were getting in Francis, before discovering otherwise – and that whatever does not serve directly the task of the successor of Peter should be marginalized or eliminated. That task is not so very difficult to delineate. It is the responsibility of the pope to guard the faith and to protect the integrity of the sacraments, first in his own diocese – which pontiffs for far too long have not served in a direct or intimate way – and then through the exercise of oversight in the college of bishops and, occasionally, in ecumenical councils. It is not his responsibility to be pastor to the planet, which he can be only by selling his papal soul to the media devil. It is not his responsibility even to choose bishops, though he has the right to choose and depose bishops. His responsibility is to see that bishops who are “carried away with the error of lawless men and lose [their] own stability” (2 Pet. 3:17) are disciplined effectively or else replaced, lest the unity of the Church in essential matters of faith and morals be compromised. This for a millennium was how popes were regarded and, when willing and able, functioned, despite some sorry (even sordid) exceptions. As for being “the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians,” with “the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church,” we have no good reason, even with chapter three of Pastor Aeternus clearly in view, to apply this Florentine determination in any more expansive or ambitious way. It is by making too much of the papal office that we have ended up making too little of it, even electing a pontiff who gives every appearance of combining these mistakes; that is, who allows communio to be converted into uncritical adulation of his own person while converting his office into that of referee between the orthodox and the heterodox in the looming wars of “synodality.” And whom do I imagine carrying out a proper reform of the papacy? No one, if not a man like Peter, a man who knows that chains can fall away (even chains forged deep in the Vatican bureaucracy) and locked doors be opened. If such a man cannot be found among those at the next conclave, the members of that conclave should break with the extra-canonical tradition of selecting one of their own number, and select another who is evident to all as such a man. For the office may be greater than the man, but the office nevertheless requires the man.
Mac, This video is wonderful and I found that Diane Montagna is quite charming, thank you for posting it. For those who have not read about the Youth Synod I would suggest that you watch the entire video. Diane Montagna speaks a little bit about Archbishop Vigano in the beginning of the video but she mainly is discussing what happened before, during and after the Youth Synod and there were a few points which I never heard before beginning at @ the 1:00:00 mark. The first one is that synodality was on the list of possible topics for the Youth Synod but the Ordinary Council of Synod verbally rejected it being included but we know that it was, in fact, included. The second point which she mentioned that I never heard of was that a counter document was quietly distributed to the bishops after the draft of the final document was completed and before the vote on the final document. Imho, this is more proof that there are many people who are actively trying to save the Church. This counter document included the following four reasons to reject the final document of the Youth Synod: It's contrary to Catholic teaching and tradition The synod structure proposed is protestant not Catholic The synods are not infallible The synods will be weaponized to undermine Catholic doctrine and morals In addition, Diane Montagna stated that this counter document which was circulating amongst the bishops at the Youth Synod also pointed out that synods can be heretical such as the Synod of Pistoia. " Auctorem fidei is a papal bull issued by Pius VI, 28 August, 1794, in condemnation of the Gallican and Jansenist acts and tendencies of the Synod of Pistoia (1786)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctorem_fidei So, I think that there is a possibility that we may see a push by some for this to happen, for the Final Document of the Youth Synod to be condemned as heretical. I also wonder if the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia is the first synod to be condemned and if a pope is the only one with the power to do so. PS - Diane Montagna also mentions in the beginning of her talk how the above photo of the 2013 lightning strike was tweeted recently with a caption of "V is for Vigano" or something to that effect. http://www.chicagotribune.com/74398533-157.html
Such gatherings w/ necessitated responses to the interjections by the Vatican are more of the diabolical plan creating the circumstances where each is forced to identify himself/herself for the separation and targeting of the "solid ones"....being "birthed in travail" by the Woman Clothed with the Sun as the Dragon waits to devour. Those at the top really need to bone up on scripture in its entirety esp. in the mystical arena. They are currently making very tasty h'ordeuvres for that Dragon who can then move on to the main course.....the sheep.
The reason China entered into this recent agreement with the Vatican is revealed in this article: The government officials were said to have warned that the Catholic Church in China was required to be autonomous from the Vatican. The Vatican has provided the Chinese government with the clear justification to bulldoze the Underground Church. Safe in the Refuge of the Immaculate Heart!
Yes, Carol, it is a very good article and more informative than anything coming from pundits on either side of the current problems in the Church. Political bias on both sides makes it difficult sometimes to distinguish between genuine concern for the Church and ideological agendas. I was going to start a thread to open a discussion on Dr. Farrow's analysis because he covers a lot of ground. Then, when I consider that his solution lies with whomever is chosen by the next Conclave, I threw in the towel because the choice will be made by Cardinals appointed by Pope Francis. I fear the trajectory is downwards and the downward spiral will continue until God calls a halt to it. Only God knows how long that will take. I'm praying for St. John Paul to intercede for us. The present Pope's greatest admirers make much of his supposed humility and commitment to unity. Striving to unify "both lungs" of Christ's Church, Pope John Paul asked whether he was the stumbling block. That's humility. Pope Francis accuses anyone not in lockstep with him of being the stumbling block to whatever is his agenda. Nothing humble about that. God help us.
Has Cardinal Cupich been a Bishop long enough to have been involved in the cover up of abuse of minors? Wouldn't most of that kind of abuse have been dealt with by the time he was made a Bishop? Only the Church can investigate and sort out the homosexual influence in the priesthood. Secular authorities don't care about Cardinal McCarrick returning from a trip with a handsome young flight attendant and having the young man enrolled in the seminary. They don't care if seminaries were no better than Roman bath houses. The question is: Does the Church hierarchy care? Sad that it is a question.
From the latest alleged message to Simona given at Zaro. It doesn´t get more clear than that. My beloved children, I come once again to ask you for prayer, prayer for my beloved Church; evil surrounds it, grips it from all sides, undermines it, has entered into it. Pray my children for my favored sons, pray for the Holy Father that he would have strong faith and that his foot would not falter. http://afterthewarning.com/messages...018/11/11-08-msg-from-our-lady-to-simona.aspx
