Is that a Catholic website? I gave up on trying to open it because there were so many ads the page wouldn't load properly and I lost patience. The reason I ask is that I read a similar statement by Cardinal Zen a while ago when the negotiations with China were nearing completion. I'm pretty sure that an agreement has been reached but I don't recall reading any statements by the Cardinal after that. If memory serves me, the Cardinal was worried that the Chinese Government would be given final say on the choice of Bishops. I think the agreement allows the state sponsored Church to nominate some candidates but that the Vatican has the final say and can choose a candidate from the underground Church. It seems weird to us and I would like to hear Cardinal Zen's opinion of the agreement but I doubt that he will speak openly about it now unless the agreement meets with his approval. It isn't unprecedented for secular authorities to have some input to the appointment of Bishops. I have a vague memory of reading that it happens in some European country, possibly Germany. If there is such an arrangement in Europe it might be a carry-over from the days of the Papal States.
A prophecy for today, Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser[17th century] During this period, many men will abuse of the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude the Apostle spoke when he said, ‘These men blaspheme whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do… They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.’During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh…They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and. nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at. all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretation, modification, and delimitation by man…These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities.. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their. duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5441/canon_377__5_and_the_chinese_negotiations.aspx Canon 377 § 5 and the Chinese negotiations Archbishop Joseph Li Shan of Beijing celebrates Christmas Eve Mass in 2016 at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. (CNS photo/Wu Hong, EPA) Canon 377 § 5 of the 1983 Code states “In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.” Frankly, the canonical theorist in me has always been uncomfortable with Canon 377 § 5 (it has no parallel in Eastern law) in that the provision seems to be at odds with the important legal maxim “Par in parem non habet imperium”, that is, an equal (the pope who legislated Canon 377) cannot bind an equal (a later pope who might wish to disregard this kind of canon). But the law clearly says what it says. Now, to judge from usually reliable news sources, the granting of certain rights of what look like, at least, “nomination” (in the English sense of the word, which differs somewhat from the Latin) or “presentation” (beyond the narrow sense of that phrase in religious law where it is usually encountered) of episcopal candidates seems to be what Pope Francis has in mind for China. At any rate, Joseph Cardinal Zen (emer. Hong Kong) seems to think so and his views always need to be considered very seriously in such matters. Setting aside, though, the possibility that such a plan might not be, in the end, what Francis actually has in mind, and prescinding for the moment from the possibility that Canon 377 § 5 might have been written too broadly to begin with, it is important to realize that the norm itself rests on some very strong Conciliar roots. The Second Vatican Council’s decree on bishops, Christus Dominus(1965) 20, stated: Since the apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ the Lord and pursues a spiritual and supernatural purpose, this sacred ecumenical synod declares that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per seexclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the Church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities. The civil authorities, on the other hand, whose favorable attitude toward the Church the sacred synod gratefully acknowledges and highly appreciates, are most kindly requested voluntarily to renounce the above-mentioned rights and privileges which they presently enjoy by reason of a treaty or custom, after discussing the matter with the Apostolic See. The kind of language suggests that more than temporary expediencies are at work behind Canon 377 and that, therefore, more than temporary expediencies should be considered before disregarding it. A number of countries still enjoy a concordat-based right to prior notice of pending episcopal appointments in their lands, this, to allow time for exchanges of views concerning same (Exegetical CommII/1:759), but a few others have, in whole or in part, surrendered their rights in these matters (GB&I Comm 216). The trend may be small, but it is welcome. The Holy See / China negotiations are not, it seems, limited to episcopal appointment matters, and prudence will, as always, have to temper the application of principles. Still, let’s hope that Church-State negotiations in one very tense corner of the world don’t result in unintended Church-State consequences for others. Addendum: A few months ago George Weigel made points worth recalling here.
Not sure what you have against Mark Mallet, except for the fact you don't feel alleged prophetic utterances that he quotes often have validity. I think Mark is perhaps one of the greatest evangelists of our time. Charlie spoke as a prophet and cooked his own goose. Mark's writings are unfolding rapidly and I am not aware of one blog of his in well over a decade of writings that has been discredited in the least.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/6785/0/women-deacons-a-possibility-says-cardinal Women deacons a possibility says cardinal Headlines > Women deacons a possibility says cardinal 24 February 2017 | by Christa Pongratz-Lippitt President of Pontifical Council for Culture, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, thinks a women's diaconate could happen. According to the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the diaconate for women is a possibility. Asked in a long interview for the German Church’s website katholisch.de on 24 February, what possibilities he saw for women in the Catholic Church, Ravasi replied, “The diaconate for women would, I think, be possible but it must of course, be discussed, as the historic tradition is very complex.” He thought the present fixation on women’s ordination somewhat “clerical”, he said. “Why don’t we start talking about women taking on other most important functions in the Church such as women administering parishes, directing church finances or architectural planning?” Asked how women were faring in the Vatican, Ravasi recalled that in his Permanent Women’s Consultation Group in the Council for Culture he had 35 women of very different backgrounds as advisers. “Among them there is a university professor, a mother, two Muslims, a Jewess, a non-believer, women from the fashion world and women journalists.” It was also their job to read and critically assess what the Council was doing from the feminine point of view. “Women see many things differently from men. Our women advisers help prepare our general assembly and take part. I hope our model will become a model for other Pontifical Councils”. Ravasi said he was fully aware of the risk he was taking by allowing women consultors to play these roles. “If one of them were to say she was in favour of women’s ordination, for instance – and in my opinion it would be perfectly legitimate for her to express her opinion openly – the following headline would no doubt immediately go round the world, “Cardinal Ravasi suggests Women’s Ordination”. This sort of “ambiguity” in communications and the media was currently a very big problem, he declared.
I was wondering how he would spin and twist today's gospel: http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-fr...tm_campaign=Feed:+Onepeterfive+(OnePeterFive) Pope Francis: Jesus Did Not Tell the Pharisees that Divorce is Forbidden Maike Hickson February 24, 2017 0 Comments There are coming to us now different reports about Pope Francis’ Santa Marta homily of today which are very troubling. He mentions the Pharisees’ question about divorce and whether it is permitted and then comments on the reaction of Our Lord (Mark 10:1-12), as follows: Jesus does not answer whether it is permitted or not. He does not enter into their [the Pharisees’] classic casuistry. Because they [the Pharisees] thought of faith merely in the framework of “one may not” or “one may” – up to which point one may, up to which point one may not. Thus logic of casuistry: Jesus does not enter into it. And He Himself poses a question: “Now, what did Moses command you? What is written in your law?” And they explain the permission which Moses gave to write a divorce certificate and to dismiss a woman from marriage; and it is they who went into a trap, yes. Because Jesus calls them “hard hearted”: “only because you are so hard hearted, he has given you this law,” and He spoke the truth. Without casuistry, without permissions. The truth. [my emphasis] Pope Francis also mentions the adulteress with whom Jesus repeatedly spoke and whom He did not condemn. Pope Francis explains that Jesus “puts aside casuistry.” It is in this context that the impression arises that Christ Himself ignored His own teaching. What is stunning in these comments is the following fact: Mark 10:1-12 does make it very clear that Jesus Christ instructed the Pharisees about the right way. It reads: He set out from there and went into the district of Judea [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them. The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” [my emphasis] Pope Francis claims in his homily that Jesus Christ did not give a clear answer to the Pharisees, but Our Lord did. He did explain this law against divorce later more in detail to His own disciples, but He did not leave the Pharisees’ question unanswered. Moreover, Pope Francis, in his homily, says that Our Lord “always speaks the truth” and then he mentions that Jesus did tell His disciples about the prohibition of divorce. Francis adds: “This is the way of Jesus – it is quite clear – it is the path from casuistry to truth and mercy. Jesus leaves aside the logic of casuistry. To those who wanted to test him, to those who thought of this logic of ‘it is possible’, he termed them – not here, but in another passage of the Gospel – hypocrites. Even with the fourth commandment, they denied assistance to their relatives with the excuse that they had given a good offer to the Church. Hypocrites. The casuistry is hypocritical. It is a form of hypocrisy. ‘You can – you cannot’ … which then becomes more subtle, more evil: I? I can up to this point but from here to here, I cannot. This is the deception of casuistry.” [my emphasis] While there is always a lack of clarity in Pope Francis’ speech that makes it hard to see, distinctly and reliably, what he means, he appears here to demean those faithful who wish to abide by the Law of God with regard to marriage and divorce, implying that these are the real hypocrites. The pope also implies in today’s homily that Our Lord did not give to the Pharisees a clear law. Moreover, this last quote implies that these faithful questions about what is forbidden and what is allowed are already in themselves effectively evil. The simple setting of boundaries and limits is here called a “deception of casuistry.” But, we have to remember that that is exactly what God has given to us in the form of the Ten Commandments and His Moral Precepts – so that we may have, under Grace, a life more abundant. God’s Laws are acts of love.
No mention of how many of Cardinal Ravasi's women are practising Catholics. Perhaps none considering such women would fear being ostracised for being rigorists.
Cardinal Zen gave a very enlightening interview on EWTN on the 16th February. He didn't sound too confident about the proposed agreement between the Vatican and the Chinese government (evidently it hasn't been finalised yet). He thinks that the Pope could be naive about Communist totalitarianism but that those advising him shouldn't be confused. He wasn't impressed, either, with the Pontifical Academy for Sciences inviting and giving a platform to a Chinese health official on the topic of organ trafficking, given the Chinese record on it. I don't understand why Cardinal Zen was excluded from the negotiations with China. Cardinal Zen has urged the Pope not to visit China, allowing the Government to use him for propaganda purposes. He says that the Pope told him he has no plans to visit there within the next year. Pray that Pope Francis isn't about to betray faithful Chinese Catholics. God help them.
Mark is totally out of touch with what is going on. His teaming with Charlie only goes to show he is clueless,and has no foresight whatsoever. He cannot defend church teaching and paint Pope Francis as doing well at the same time.
No more accusations that the SSPX is "schismatic": http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2017/02/society-of-saint-pius-x-on-their-way.html Society of Saint Pius X "On Their Way Home " - the Prelature Headquarters to be on Esquiline Hill? (Rome) The agreement between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is final. The role of Pope Francis is decisive. This is reported by the Vaticanist Matteo Matzuzzi in today's edition of Il Foglio. "The rift between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (Lefebvrian) and the Holy See is immediately about to be repaired," says Matzuzzi. Evidence that the "complex negotiations" are moving towards a "positive solution" are the intentions of the Society to buy the Santa Maria Immacolata building complex on the Esquiline, one of the seven hills of Rome. The complex is located close to the Lateran. The large neo-gothic church was built for an order at the end of the 19th century. This included other buildings that were used as a school in recent years. The study center is to be built near the Lateran According to Il Foglio, there will be a study center of the Society and additionally the General House of Personal Prelature, as soon as the Society is recognized as such by the Holy See. The approach by Pope Francis himself has accelerated. In January on the 17-20 Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society, was quartered in Santa Marta in the Vatican. With him, Monsignor Alfonso de Galarreta and the Assistant General, Father Alain Nely, had come to Rome. At the talks, the Superior of the Sisters of the Society also took part. Father Nely is commissioned to complete the purchase at Esquiline. The Society has had contacts, as Monsignor Fellay confirms, in Argentina with the then primate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. "He has known us for a long time." If there were problems with a local bishop, one had turned to the primate. He said: "You are, of course, Catholic and not schismatic. I'll help you." He did. That has to do with the laws of Argentina. The Latin country gives Catholic priests a residence permit only if there is an official confirmation from local church representatives that the priests are officially recognized. In this respect, in a single case (individual cases), there were interventions by Archbishop Bergoglio, who issued this confirmation for the Argentine state. The fact that things had not already come to an agreement with Rome in 2012 led Matzuzzi to the resistance of the French part in the Society. Had it been up to the German District, the Society would already have "returned to communion with Rome". "Fellay now seems ready to go to end the standoff, even at the cost of painful losses among his faithful and priests," says Matzuzzi.
We have entered confusing times. And this confusion seems to be a method, a modus operandi. Imagine if a few years ago someone had posted something like this on this forum: Could someone here please clarify where the Church stands on the following issues: Adultery Contraception Abortion Homossexual "marriage" Transgenderism Genetic manipulation Population control I would venture to say most here, reading such post would think: "What kind of a post is this? Who´s this guy? Doesn´t he know the answer to these questions? Because they are clear. Why is he wasting our time with questions whose answers are obvious?" or something along these lines. But a lot has changed over the last few years. Can we honestly say that such questions are irrelevant today? That the answer to them is obvious? That such post should not merit a response? And worse yet: does anybody here know the answer to those questions? Of course you could refer to Church Doctrine - that hasn´t changed. But that´s not what I mean. Church doctrine could remain untouched, unchanged. But it can be circumvented, re-interpreted, ignored. It can be kept in a glass case, like a beautiful dead lady. Like Snow White after tasting the poisoned apple. It remains there, like a relic from a dead age. Those who say it should be taken seriously will be labelled "rigid", "unmerciful". It´s the same liberal tactics applied to the US Constitution: keep it there, no need to change it. Just circumvent it and demonize those who claim it´s being disregarded. Call them "right-wing nuts", "radicals". After all, the media is on your side. It´s Marxism 2.0. The new, revamped Marxism after it was modernized and brought up to date by Antonio Gramsci with his concept of "cultural hegemony": In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Mac, what you say is unsubstantiated fake news/commentary. What does "teaming up with Charlie" even mean? Give specifics in context. When has he defined Pope Francis as "doing well" and what does that even mean? All his blogs are easy to reference at www.markmallet.com, so I would appreciate any references to what you have alleged within his actual writings in context. I believe you have pulled out of some of his writings selective lines out of context to make your case. I am all for objective commentary, but to take those who provide a well balanced approach to these times (not knee jerk reactions) is unchristian. Mark, like myself and many others pray for and hope the best for Charlie and Pope Francis and all who have been misled. Mark speaks the truth with the knowledge that is present. It is one thing to recognize the confusion in the church, but it is quite another thing to pretend that one has to be in far right fringe within a Traditionalist Catholic mindset in order to be fully in the light. Mark is one of the most balanced "watchman" of our times and his writings are IMO of the highest caliber.
Picadillo, yesterday at my Hour of Adoration I was thinking this same thing. The time of Judas. If the Church is undergoing her passion in imitation of her Bridegroom Christ, then we are in the Judas moment. Betrayal upon betrayal. But this is only the beginning....if it follows Our Lord's Passion, we are in for some very very bad bad days.
Yes, the hour of judgement is here. Just be very careful whom one judges themselves, lest they be judged. We can judge wrongful actions and words, but we had better hold back our judgement on anyone, even a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest lest we be judged. I sense to many are radical and even excited about wanting to through clerics under the bus. We are still in the moment, when speaking within the light may bring those who are in the shadows of darkness back within the light. Even Judas would have been forgiven had he asked before he hung himself.
Page 69 & counting! OKAY!!! The Vatican might have fallen, Old Christendom for sure has fallen and the Republic of the USA not far behind .... though there are some that have high hopes for Revival? I have High Hopes but Low Expectations 'cause Spiritual/Secular SIGNS abound that tell me otherwise. I do, however, have High Hopes/Expectations in The Lord!! The SIGNS tell me that He is near and He will not let His Flock be victimized beyond salvation be it by corrupt Clergy or worse Politicians! Soooo ... As for me, I'm Praising God for His nearness, Thanking Him for His Simple Word and Message of Salvation ... for me and anyone in need sent my way .... the rest is all distraction, division, angst and wasted time!! Past time to "Man the Walls" and pray, prepare and WATCH! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
I don't see you praising Our Holy Father. Thanks to him SP10 has been invited to the table. I'm sure SP10 won't be attacking Our Holy Father. They will be debating but not attacking. May Gods Will be Done
Quotes by Antonio Gramsci: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society. What comes to pass does so not so much because a few people want it to happen, as because the mass of citizens abdicate their responsibility and let things be. And the 11-step plan of cultural subversion of the Marxist Frankfurt School https://redgreenalliance.com/2016/02/11/political-correctness-the-postmodern-cult/ Western society was too ingrained with Christianity and the traditional values that it espoused, that the culture had to be changed first – before the Revolution could take root. Therefore – Christianity and traditional values must be destroyed. This is Cultural Marxism.
I frankly don't trust him and suspect ulterior motives on his part. Time will tell. I take comfort in St. John Bosco's dream of smaller ships coming to the aid of a Holy Father fighting to keep the Barque of Peter afloat and on course. I'm not an SSPX adherent so I have no dog in this fight, however.
