It is highly unlikely. I think it will take a cataclysmic event for the hierarchy to proceed with the consecration as requested.Just as the King of France finally responded when disaster struck.
Our Lady could have prevented the second world war if the catholic world had responded to Her requests. Pope Francis now fears a third World War. Over water.https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/24/pope-asks-world-headed-towards-great-world-war-water/ He seems to have his finger on the pulse
The request was for the Pope, in union with all the bishops of the world, to consecrate Russia. Wouldn't that take a lot of pre-planning and co-ordinating? I haven't heard any mention of his telling all the bishops of the world to unite with him in doing the consecration. Have you? Perhaps they don't all have to do the consecration at the same time? If that's the case, then I suppose the instruction to do it asap would be sufficient. Perhaps Cardinal Coccopalmerio was avoiding the possibility of even more awkward questions. For example: http://theweek.com/articles/670249/child-abuse-scandal-coming-pope-francis. An extract from the article: "Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname "Don Mercedes." He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked. But Don Mercedes was "with cardinal friends," we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a "a life of humility and prayer." These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy." In case Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto's name doesn't ring a bell with you, he's the priest who issued the dire warning that the Pope could demote the four Cardinals who submitted the dubia: https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-se...ld-strip-dubia-cardinals-of-their-cardinalate The Pope's adopting a more "merciful" approach to paedophiles is also covered in this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sanctions-sex-abusers-seeking-mercy/98399022/ In the thread about Malta, someone (I think it may have been Fallen Saint) suggested that paedophiles were more likely to be found among traditional priests. While I don't believe that the scourge of paedophilia is peculiar to either "traditionalists" or "liberals", I'm wondering how Don Mercedes or his advocates could be labelled as traditionalists.
Don't worry, Mac, WW3 will be jotted on a note and slipped under the statue of St. Joseph while the Pope deals with the more urgent issue of treating Paul Erlich and the other population controllers to lunch in the Vatican on Ash Wednesday after they have all decided how many babies need to be aborted to save the planet.
All I can offer is we found what Fallensaint said to be utterly false here in the US. The more liberal/merciful pedophiles were way outnumbered those in traditional orders. There were a few traditional priests but not many. Liberal prelates had a much higher percentage of pederasty than trads. We found the dissenters were far more likely to be involved in pedophilia than trads. Not even close.
Thank you for clarifying that Pic. That statement by FS bothered me when he posted it. I have never heard anyone say anything of the sort before. Glad to know it is not the case.
FS, I would ask Picadillo exactly where the post is. I was just responding to what their post said. I took a quick look for your original post and couldn't find it. I am not sure it is even on this particular thread. I remember being stunned when I saw what you wrote and almost responded to it at the time. From what I have read this has always been much more of a problem in the "liberal" and "modernist" wing of the Church. It was something to the effect that pedophilia or homosexual behaviors, etc. were more common in "trad" or "conservative" parts of the Church. I can't give you a direct quote because I can't find your original posting. I don't want to put words in your mouth so if anyone knows the original post number please link it here.
Pedophilia...you guys are too much. Never said anything to that affect. But I can say 20 years ago...some bishops and priest I respected and knew personally. I thought were very holy men. Fell from grace in the Catholic Church. Some where actually sent to the desert for retraining. Also in the seminary the homosexual contingent leaned conservative. They liked the pompous outfits. I will stand by my statement. You might not agree but that is my experience. And, I did complain to the dean of students. He stated as long as they were not practicing homosexuals it was ok. Nonsense to me but I was only a seminarian. That dean actually left the church and got married. He was on fast-track to be Bishop. My statement said maybe the problem could be with the homosexual contingency in the conservative side of the church. That might be why it's so hard to battle. If the devil had to infiltrate the church. He would enter through the conservative side. He already has the liberal side. Brother al
This may be the post on page 52 of this thread! Where FS says......... I don't want to go down this path. But what if a percentage of the conservative/traditional contingent have homosexual ties. Or worse Masonic ties. And the Pope was forced to clean up the nonsense. You might say I am sinning by even mentioning this. But at the seminary in the late 80's the homosexual contingent leaned conservative. Now I'm not saying everyone is but I am sure a few continued on their vocation. Is this something I should bring up. Maybe not but we have no idea what the Holy Father is currently battling. And he seems to be following the footsteps of St. Francis. I don't say this to bring scandal. That is not my intention. But this battle is bigger then Our Holy Father and Cardinal Burke.
It wasn't just on this thread. You raised the issue of paedophilia in one of the discussions about Malta, telling us that the guy sacked by the Pope had previously re-instated a man who had been negligent in dealing with a paedophile.
I am sorry if I was misremembering FS. I don't disagree you may have had some personal anecdotal experiences that lead to the formation of your belief, but in general homosexuals have mostly leaned to the liberal end of the spectrum in many sphere's of life and the Church is no different. My apologies though as I see in the quote I was thinking of that is cited above you didn't mention pedophiles.
Thank you Josephite and Dolours, yes that is the quote that was being talked about thanks for finding it.
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-church-welcomes-cohabitation.html?m=1 The Church Welcomes Cohabitation Antonio "Sock-Puppet" Spadaro is at it again, this time with a pro-cohabitation tweet. Actually, in true Spadaro fashion, the tweet is in fact a retweet of his own original tweet. He realized that the first tweet didn't pick up the evocative photo centered on the "back" of the young women, so he added it on the retweet. I'm not kidding about that. Take a look at the stream. Don't blame me, man. I didn't even notice it at first. I was looking at the Pope's welcoming expression. The picture heads a short article in Spadaro's CyberTeologia titled (you guessed it), "The welcoming of those young people who prefer to live together without getting married..." The piece seems to classify cohabitation as a sort of potentially benign stepping stone (made all the more pervasive by the uncertainties caused by modern capitalism or whatever): And this is why he [Pope Francis] asks for the welcoming of those young people who prefer to live together without getting married.But the Pope has done nothing more than to repeat what the Synod of Bishops 2016 approved with more than an 80% consensus . . . and that is that one realizes that simply cohabiting is often chosen due to a general mentality against definitive commitments, but also because the couple is waiting for existential security (work and a fixed salary).All these situations must be addressed in a constructive manner, trying to transform them into an opportunity to journey towards the fullness of marriage and family in the light of the Gospel.Rather, in many circumstances, the decision to live together is a sign of a relationship that needs to be directed to an outlook of stability to which it is important to focus. In my experience, living together as a sort of stepping stone is how most cohabitating couples view things anyway: "We're not ready yet." "We're going to try it and see what happens." "He might get transferred." And so on. Very few couples, again in my experience, would brand cohabitation itself as a permanent arrangement. So, Spadaro's novel interpretation of Church teaching appears to be nothing more than the outlook of the average indecisive twenty-seven year-old. But of course, it's not simply Spadaro's novel interpretation, but that of Pope Francis. Spadaro's article was no doubt written at the direction or blessing of the Pope, and is taken from an address that the Pope gave to priests on the "new matrimonial process" just the day before: “At the same time, be neighbours in the style proper to the Gospel, in encounter and welcome, to those young people who prefer to cohabit without getting married”, he said, “because on a spiritual and moral level they are among the poorest and the least, for whom the Church, following in the footsteps of her Master and Lord, wishes to be a mother who does not abandon them, but rather who approaches and cares for them. Christ also loves these people with all His heart. Look upon them with tenderness and compassion. This care for the least, precisely because it emanates from the Gospel, is an essential part of your task of promoting and defending the sacrament of marriage”. Sorry, I meant to give you the more illuminating shortened version: welcom(ing) those young people who prefer to cohabit without getting married . . . is an essential part of your task of promoting and defending the sacrament of marriage”.As to whether Francis/Spadaro believes that cohabitating couples should take communion: based on that photo and the texts, what do you think? There's a hidden irony here. The photo above is not a recent one. It was taken in the first year of the Pope's pontificate at a "Valentine's Day" audience with "20,000 engaged couples" in St. Peter's Square. In other words, the unidentified young woman whose un-jacket-covered bum Antonio Spadaro saw fit to appropriate for his religious magazine was not "living together without getting married," but was instead engaged to the young man holding her hand. Spadaro wrote a book on cyberethics. Let me end on an obvious but serious point. The Church has always believed that premarital sex is a grave sin. The proper response to grave sin is not "maybe it will develop into something else" but "stop." The Pope clearly does not believe the Church's teaching. He doesn't want that couple to believe it. He doesn't want you to believe it. Either he's wrong and this is therefore another example of why he either isn't or shouldn't be Pope. Or else, on this subject, what the Church has taught for the last 2,000 years, going all the way back to the words of our Lord, is a lie. Which do you think it is?
