Except the Blessed Mother was not angry and harsh and vile in her manner or speech. SJW's believe in fairytale's.
Sad. This young girl doesn't even realize that she has become a victim of those who promote this socialist, climate crisis agenda. She is out there doing their dirty work for them, believing in such a noble cause, while the Maryknolls chime in comparing this girl with Our Blessed Mother. The anger projected in Greta's facial expression says it all. Sigh.
Blizzard, Thank you for posting this. Michael Matt does a pretty good job with his videos imo. Jo M, I think you are right. I had forgotten that she was diagnosed with Asperger's until someone posted about it on another thread today. What the adults around her have done to her appears to qualify as child abuse imo. I can't imagine a child with Asperger's being told to make the trek that she did in a sailboat across the Atlantic Ocean. This seems very wrong and it's no wonder that she appeared angry and tired at the UN meetings this week. In addition, that ride would be grueling for someone who trained for it. It's all so sad. I get a lot of mailings from the Maryknoll Missionaries which talk about what they do and also mass cards for donations and such. Their statement about Greta Thunberg being like the Blessed Mother is a bit disappointing, to say the least. They could have said something else which might have been helpful to the child imo.
It seems to me that Greta is an unfortunate little girl being exploited by those who should know better. I'm amazed that Swedish social services haven't stepped in to protect her. Were she a Christian child or, indeed, a child of any other faith who missed so much school evangelising people to her parents' religion, would the State services be taking such a hands-off approach? While climate change alarmism isn't a registered religion, it does bear hallmarks of a religion albeit one without a deity or a belief in an after-life. Then again, they do treat Earth as a kind of god. I've never heard of the Maryknoll missionaries and I never want to hear of them again.
Robots As Catholic ‘Priests’ September 22, 2019 by sd From Vox: Ilia Delio, a professor of Christian Theology at Villanova University, offered Vox some fascinating thoughts about this. Instead of trying to persuade Catholic worshippers that priests are somehow divinely consecrated, she said, perhaps the existence of robot priests would offer a new perspective on being a good person to deserve eternal life. “We have these fixed philosophical ideas and AI challenges those ideas. It challenges Catholicism to move toward a post-human priesthood,” she said. MORE: https://www.zdnet.com/article/robot...to-protestants-than-catholics-says-professor/
Villanova. The only Augustinian university in the US. The place where the much beloved Cardinal McCarrick shared with them his insights into the election of Pope Francis and his belief that the new Pope could change the Church. Maybe robot priests was an idea he shared with them off camera. Anything's possible in New Church. We even had a member here who thought that it would be good to make a layperson a Cardinal because he's an expert on climate change. Come to think of it, doesn't Jeffrey Sachs already hold have similar status albeit unofficially? At least a robot priest could be programmed to only teach the Faith rather than his own opinion of what the Faith should be. Then again, who would do the programming? Garbage in, garbage out.
Pope Francis with Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops conference. Sep 24, 2019 Cdl Marx: ‘no stop sign’ from Pope Francis for our German synodal path on celibacy, sexual morality Maike Hickson | https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...rman-synodal-path-on-celibacy-sexual-morality September 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Yesterday, on the first day of the German bishops' fall assembly in Fulda, Cardinal Reinhard Marx gave a press conference, in which he discussed his recent meeting with Pope Francis and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, as well as his plans for the upcoming German synodal path, which, as he insists, is “not a synod” or a “particular council” which would be subject to canon law. Speaking about his visit and conversations in Rome which ended on September 20, the President of the German Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Munich-Freising insisted that they have been “throughout positive and encouraging.” “There is no stop sign,” explained Marx, “it was a constructive encounter” with Ouellet and the Pope, so that “I cannot see that the synodal path now somehow would be endangered.” That is to say, Pope Francis did not tell Cardinal Marx to stop a project that plans to question the Church's teaching on celibacy, on sexual morality, on the all-male priesthood, as well as on the link between ordination and governance in the Church. Further commenting on Pope Francis and his June letter to the German Catholics, Cardinal Marx said that “the Pope really has opened the doors with his letter, and as we understand him, as I understand him – and as I also have found it confirmed in my conversation [with him] – he points to aspects which we should keep in mind and which are not new to us and which we accept.” Asked as to whether the final statutes of the German synodal path – as the German bishops will vote on them during their September 23-26 gathering – need to be approved, Cardinal Marx answers: “A condition that a higher approval is required? – I did not hear that.” That would mean that Rome lets the Germans have it their own way. LifeSiteNews reached out to Matthias Kopp, the press speaker of Cardinal Marx, asking for a further elaboration of Cardinal Marx' comments, but Kopp so far has not yet given a response to the question. German synodal path to lead to Vatican III? Cardinal Ouellet, the head of the Congregation for Bishops, had written a September 4 letter – with a critique by the Congregation for Legislative Texts attached – to the German bishops, saying that the German synodal path intends to “convoke a particular council without, however, using that term.” Such a particular council, however, is subject to canon law. For such a synodal path to have binding character, would lie “outside of its [the German Bishops' Conference] competence,” the letter states. The documents also point out that decision making has to be linked to the “hierarchical structures” in the Church. Furthermore, the document of the Congregation for Legislative Texts asks: “How can an assembly of a particular church make decisions on topics of the Universal Church, and how can a bishops' conference be dominated by an assembly, the majority of which are not bishops?” Here, the critics point to the strong influence of laymen in the German synodal path. At this year's spring assembly, the German bishops had approved of the synodal path in the last minutes of their March 11-14 gathering in Lingen, after having heard invited speakers questioning the Church's teaching on homosexuality, cohabitation, contraception, the gender theory, as well as other important moral topics. The synodal path is to begin this Advent and last for two years. Putting aside Rome's objections to the synodal path as a “binding” process, which would include lay involvement, also with regard to the voting process at the end, Cardinal Marx now says that the German synodal path is meant as a “discussion,” at the end of which the German bishops would then send a “votum” to Rome, asking Rome to continue this debate. “This then is also not the end of the synod,” Marx explained, “[because] then the synodal path goes on to Rome.” One may wish and work for the idea to “change the Church's law,” according to the German cardinal. “If nothing would change, we would not have had a council,” he added, making a reference to the Second Vatican Council. “It is even legitimate,” he continued, “to speak of a next council, that is not forbidden.” In light of these words, one may well imagine that Marx' plan is to start a synodal path which then will lead to a Third Vatican Council in Rome. Marx is now saying that, in spite of the fact that he calls the German synodal path “binding,” it is merely meant to be a discussion – with no further binding character for the bishops involved – and that the result of this discussion would then be sent to Rome, with certain requests attached. “Of course, we cannot, with the help of a synodal path, remove the legislative power of a diocese,” Marx now states. He also insists that the German bishops wish to remain in union with the Universal Church. “We can only make decisions in communion with the Pope.” This case-by-case method has been applied by Marx already with regard to the guidelines on Communion for Protestant spouses. After many disturbances and interventions from Rome, Pope Francis had given approval that Marx publish the German bishops' controversial guidelines approving of Communion for some Protestant spouses, but with the reference that it is left to each bishop whether he wishes to implement them or not. Thereby, the doctrinal objections against these guidelines were simply overlooked and ignored. Practice dominated doctrine. In this manner, Cardinal Marx now also hopes to continue his synodal path in Germany, which in his eyes then should influence the Universal Church. At the September 23 press conference, the German prelate insisted that it is not only the Germans who wish for change. “I see that on the level of the Universal Church, there is much movement,” Marx stated. It is not so, that in other countries, “all are of the same opinion.” “That is to say,” he added, “we also make contributions for the Universal Church.” The German bishops are set to finalize the statutes for their synodal path in the coming days. The fact that the Pope seems to have given free reign to Cardinal Marx and his fellow bishops will encourage them to approve of their statutes. Observers expect that there will be only few abstentions or counter votes on the final vote. Opposition to German synodal path Two German bishops, however, are publicly known to have opposed the synodal path: Cardinal Rainer Woelki and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer. They only recently proposed an alternative plan for the synodal path which would have been in accordance with canon law and which would have stressed the need for evangelization, as distinct from questioning the Church's perennial teachings on matters such as celibacy and homosexuality. It would have left out altogether the discussion of female ordination, which as Woelki and Voderholzer insist, has already been ruled out by the Church. Cardinal Woelki, in a talk dated September 25, 2019, reminds his fellow Germans with reference to Pope Francis' letter to the German Catholics that “the synodal path may not take place without the Universal Church.” He once more warns against “a substantively and also formally separate path which would cut us out from the Universal Body of Christ.” But they are not alone in their opposition. Archbishop Nicola Eterović, in his September 23 address to the German bishops, reminded the German Bishops' Conference of the need to concentrate on the task of the “evangelization,” a task that applies also to the “particular churches.” He also quotes Pope Francis' recent words that “a synod is not a parliament” which is subject to the methods as they are being used in politics. Once more, Eterović stresses in his address the “primacy of evangelization,” something that both Woelki and Voderholzer also support. ‘Fixation’ on female ordination Moreover, Professor Marianne Schlosser, a member of the doctrinal commission of the German Bishops' Conference and a participant of the synodal path's forum on women, declared on Friday that she canceled her participation since she saw that the discussions have a “fixation” on the topic of female ordination, something that has been long ruled out by the Catholic Church. In an additional Open Letter as published by the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, Schlosser also explained in detail as to why a female priesthood is not possible, in light of God's Revelation. She shows herself “shaken” by the fact that women are now asking “the question of power” and link it to the matter of ordination, since the Catholic Church is not about power, and, according to Saint Gregory the Great, those who push themselves forward for ordination should not be ordained. “In the Church,” she explains, “there is only to be the authority as it has been bestowed upon by Christ Himself.” Schlosser also is troubled by the claim that women have a “right” to ordination. She sees a “wrong understanding of ordination” at play. Professor Schlosser also insists upon the fact that Pope John Paul II' explicit ban on female ordination in his 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has a “binding” character. Such a teaching, as many others, she adds, do not need an explicit formal declaration. “It is not at all the case that everything that has to be accepted 'de fide' – that is to say in the Faith – is formally declared a dogma.”
Evenstar, Yes, I agree. I am not sure that this has been posted yet on the forum, *** I believe that everyday more and more clergy and laity are speaking up and this was my thought when I stated that I was reminded of one of St. John Bosco's prophecies. It is a bit of stretch but this is at least the second time that I thought of this prophecy and wondered if the Holy Father that Bosco is speaking of is actually the spirit of Pope St. John Paul II. "Having heard that the Holy Father began the march. The farther he went the greater did the procession behind increase. When finally he set foot in the Holy City, he wept bitter tears for the distress in which he found the people and the large number now missing. As he entered St. Peter's he intoned the 'Te Deum' to which a choir of angels replied singing: Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will.' " Leading American Catholic philosophers say JPII Institute changes threaten credibility https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...-institute-changes-threaten-credibility-44916 Vatican City, Sep 25, 2019 / 08:55 pm (CNA).- Leading American Catholic philosophers have written to the leadership of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute in Rome to express their concern that recent changes at the university have not properly respected the academic integrity of the institution. “Observance in full of previously instituted procedures is part of what defines any academic institution as free in the pursuit of its mission,” leaders of the American Catholic Philosophical Association wrote in a Sept. 17 letter to both the grand chancellor and president of the John Paul II Institute. “Without collegiality in this consultation and the involvement of governing boards and long-term faculty, the university or institute can no longer claim the imprimatur of seeking the truth. Just this loss of credibility now threatens the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family.” The letter was signed by the 15 American academics who comprise the executive council and the executive committee of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. Among the signatories are lay and clerical professors from the Catholic University of America, Fordham University, Boston College, the University of Dallas, the University of San Francisco, and several other institutions. The letter was written in response to changes announced this summer to the pontifical theological institute, which was founded by Pope St. John Paul II in 1980. In July, new statutes were approved for the institute, in response to a 2017 announcement that Pope Francis would legally refound the Institute, and broaden its academic curriculum, from a focus on the theology of marriage and the family to an approach that will also include the study of the family from the perspective of the social sciences. After the new statutes designed to implement that vision were approved, students, alumni, and faculty raised concerns about the role of faculty members in the institute’s new governing structure, about the reduction of theology courses and the elimination of some theology disciplines, and about the dismissal of some faculty members, including Msgr. Livio Melina and Fr. Jose Noriega. Faculty members have told CNA they do not object to the pope’s desire to expand the school’s mission or approach, but say that the administrators responsible for implementing that mission have acted unfairly. The philosophers agreed with that charge. Their letter said that the institute has been a “voice of wisdom speaking freely from within the Church tradition,” and lamented that the institute’s credibility is “threatened by recent changes in the Institute, especially the dismissal of long-term faculty.” “We realize that the justification for these changes is that the Institute has been re-established with new statutes,” the philosophers said, but added that “this re-establishment presents the appearance of a lack of academic due process.” The philosophers are not the first scholars to express their concerns about the Pontifical John Paul II Institute. In August, a group of 49 academics who have collaborated with professors from the institute expressed similar concerns, in a letter to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the institute’s grand chancellor, and Msgr. Pierangelo Sequiri, its president. This month, the president of the Ukranian bishops’ conference wrote to Vatican officials on behalf of other Ukrainian bishops, to express support for the institute’s original mission and faculty members. For their part, the American philosophers said the mission of the John Paul II Institute is unique, and important. “While the reason given for changes at the John Paul II Institute is to update its course of studies, in fact its mission as envisioned by St. John Paul II continues to be relevant to the fostering of family life amid the pressures on marriage and family in the twenty-first century. We are especially mindful of the fact that there is no other Catholic institution of higher learning in the world that has the focus the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family has had,” the philosophers added. “In contrast, there are many Catholic institutions of higher learning that foster the social sciences and advance the insights of these disciplines in relation to the Church’s mission of loving pastoral care for all people in their personal lives as sexual and communal beings.” The philosophers asked institute officials “that the mission of the John Paul II Institute as originally constituted be reinstated and that the faculty members whose contributions have been excluded by the new statutes be restored to their positions in the Institute. Only these measures are consistent with the canons of academic freedom and the very great need for the contribution of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute to the intellectual life of the Church.” A complete list of signatories is as follows: Dr. Jean De Groot, Dr. Thomas Cavanaugh, Dr. Steven Jensen, Dr. Steven Striby, Dr. Joshua Hochschild, Dr. Heidi Giebel, Dr. Christopher Tollefsen, Fr. Joseph Koterski, SJ, Fr. Arthur Madigan, SJ, Dr. Marie George, Dr. Jonathan Sanford, Dr. Thomas Osborne, Dr. Daniel De Haan, Dr. Timothy Pawl, Dr. Michael Pakaluk.
This is what grieves my heart, Padraig. The public witness of the Catholic Church is so weak and watered down, wedded to the culture instead of transforming the culture by means of Christ's Gospel! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
It's kind of funny when you think of it Terry ; we are all of us last to see our own faults. The Orthodox are going through the most totally devastating Schism in their entire history. Yet this glaring reality seems to totally escape the notice of the Metropolitan , no matter how holy he is reputed to be. He notices problems everywhere else though. When I was walking down the road today someone startled me blaring their car horn and I thought what devils people are who do such things. Then it came to me I had done the exact same thing the other night on some poor people. I think sometimes our Guardian Angels tap us on our shoulders to remind us of things. It is as well that they do; we would so easily forget.
Pope Francis offers Mass at Zimpeto Stadium in Maputo, Mozambique, Sept. 6, 2019 (TIZIANA FABI/AFP/Getty Images) Sep. 26, 2019 Pope Francis Explains What He Means by ‘Proselytism’ and ‘Evangelization’ Speaking earlier this month to Jesuits in Mozambique, the Holy Father linked proselytism to the ‘prosperity gospel,’ and endorsed the controversial 2017 essay co-authored by Father Antonio Spadaro. Edward Pentin | http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...at-he-means-by-proselytism-and-evangelization In comments to a group of Jesuits in Mozambique published Thursday, Pope Francis gave arguably his clearest explanation to date of what he means by proselytism and evangelization, but did so by indirectly endorsing a controversial “ecumenism of hate” essay that appeared in the Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica. In his Sept. 5 comments published Sept. 26 in La Civiltà Cattolica, the Pope made it clear that he sees proselytism as tied with the “prosperity gospel” popularly promoted by certain Protestant groups, although he also appears to see “Catholic fundamentalist” groups as promoting the same ideology, one which Holy Father said emphasizes “proselytism more than evangelization.” In particular, he makes a point of endorsing a controversial 2017 essay in which Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, Marcelo Figueroa, editor of L’Osservatore Romano’s Argentine edition and a Presbyterian pastor, criticized Evangelical and Catholic “fundamentalist” groups for creating an “ecumenism of hate.” The two editors saw them as promoting a “theology of prosperity,” fostering a “political Manichaeism,” a “cult of the apocalypse,” and driving towards an “ecumenism of conflict” with the goal of “nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.” The essay was criticized in the U.S. as showing an ignorance of U.S. politics and religion. From his comments, the Pope clearly sees proselytism as linked to a prosperity gospel, an attempt to “make proselytes” which, he said, Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. For the Pope, evangelization is and must be free. “Evangelization is essentially witness,” he told the Jesuits in Mozambique. “Proselytizing is convincing, but it is all about membership and takes your freedom away.” Below is the complete exchange, given to a group of 24 Jesuits on Sept. 5 in Maputo, Mozambique: Next came a question from Bendito Ngozzo, chaplain of the Santo Inácio Loyola High School: “Some Protestant sects use the promise of wealth and prosperity to make proselytes. The poor become fascinated and hope to become rich by adhering to these sects that use the name of the Gospel. That’s how they leave the Church. What recommendation can you give us so that our evangelization is not proselytism?” POPE FRANCIS: What you say is very important. To start with, we must distinguish carefully between the different groups who are identified as “Protestants.” There are many with whom we can work very well, and who care about serious, open and positive ecumenism. But there are others who only try to proselytize and use a theological vision of prosperity. You were very specific in your question. Two important articles in Civiltà Cattolica have been published in this regard. I recommend them to you. They were written by Father Spadaro and the Argentinean Presbyterian pastor, Marcelo Figueroa. The first article spoke of the “ecumenism of hatred.” The second was on the “theology of prosperity.” Reading them you will see that there are sects that cannot really be defined as Christian. They preach Christ, yes, but their message is not Christian. It has nothing to do with the preaching of a Lutheran or any other serious evangelical Christianity. These so-called “evangelicals” preach prosperity. They promise a Gospel that does not know poverty, but simply seeks to make proselytes. This is exactly what Jesus condemns in the Pharisees of his time. I’ve said it many times: proselytism is not Christian. Today I felt a certain bitterness after a meeting with young people. A woman approached me with a young man and a young woman. I was told they were part of a slightly fundamentalist movement. She said to me in perfect Spanish: “Your Holiness, I am from South Africa. This boy was a Hindu and converted to Catholicism. This girl was Anglican and converted to Catholicism.” But she told me in a triumphant way, as though she was showing off a hunting trophy. I felt uncomfortable and said to her, “Madam, evangelization yes, proselytism no.” What I mean is that evangelization is free! Proselytism, on the other hand, makes you lose your freedom. Proselytism is incapable of creating a religious path in freedom. It always sees people being subjugated in one way or another. In evangelization the protagonist is God, in proselytism it is the I. Of course, there are many forms of proselytism. The one practiced by soccer teams, acquiring fans, is all right, obviously! And then it is clear that there are those forms of proselytism for commerce and business, for political parties. Proselytism is widespread, we know that. But it doesn’t have to be the case with us. We must evangelize, which is very different from proselytizing. St. Francis of Assisi told his friars: “Go out to the world, evangelize. And, if necessary, use words, too.” Evangelization is essentially witness. Proselytizing is convincing, but it is all about membership and takes your freedom away. I believe that this distinction can be of great help. Benedict XVI in Aparecida said something wonderful, that the Church does not grow by proselytism, it grows by attraction, the attraction of witness. The sects, on the other hand, making proselytes, separate people, promising them many advantages and then leaving them to themselves. Among you there are certainly theologians, sociologists and philosophers: I ask you to study and deepen the difference between proselytism and evangelization. Read well Evangelii Nuntiandi of Paul VI. There it is clear that the vocation of the Church is to evangelize. Indeed, the very identity of the Church involves evangelizing. Unfortunately, however, not only in the sects, but also within the Catholic Church there are fundamentalist groups. They emphasize proselytism more than evangelization. Another typical thing about proselytizing is that it does not distinguish between the internal and external forums. And this is the sin into which many religious groups fall today. That is why I asked the Apostolic Penitentiary to make a statement on the internal forum, and that statement is really very good. Evangelizers never violate the conscience: They announce, sow and help to grow. They help. Whoever proselytizes, on the other hand, violates people’s conscience: This does not make them free, it makes them dependent. Evangelization gives you a dependence, that is, it makes you free and able to grow. Proselytizing gives you a servile dependence at the level of the conscience and the society. The dependence of the evangelized person, the “paternal” dependence, is the memory of the grace that God has given you. The proselyte instead depends not as a child, but as a slave, who in the end does not know what to do unless he or she is told. Once again I recommend these two articles in Civiltà Cattolica: read them and study them because they address much of what I am telling you. Here I tried to communicate to you the main message. Comments: [So far, this is the only comment.] Posted by ARSENIO ORTEZA on Thursday, Sep, 26, 2019 7:37 PM (EDT): “To proselytize” simply means “to induce someone to convert to one’s faith” (Merrian-Webster). It has nothing to do with the “prosperity gospel” or depriving anyone of freedom. *** Published on Sep 26, 2019 REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER, US Congressman from Wisconsin and member of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment inquiry launched by House Democrats this week against the President. SAM BROWNBACK, US Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom at the State Department on the President’s historic UN address highlighting the problem of religious persecution. NILE GARDINER, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation gives us an update on the state of BREXIT in the UK. DEAL HUDSON, editor of TheChristianLife.com discusses his new book, How to Keep from Losing Your Mind: Educating Yourself Classically for Survive Cultural Indoctrination. ***
Well, we know that Francis loves to insult, especially Americans. In the same speech he did his usual bit about 'rigidity' and how we mustn't concern ourselves with sins ' below the waist.' Anybody 'rigid' has serious problems, he says. I think a lot of his unrigid friends have been shown to have a lot more serious problems! I really can't be bothered even listening to this excuse for a pope any longer. He is just rabidly anti-catholic. Anyhow, who was he to judge as to whether the two young people had been 'evangelised' or ' proselytised'? Could he tell that based on an introduction! He was just furious that they became Catholic. As was Lucifer.
Pupils never understand a poor teacher... They are always left scratching their head in bewilderment.
