Really .....Hasnt changed eh? http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-francis-effect-catholic-schools-and.html
Yes, really, Mac. You can post (and you no doubt will) endless articles from the rorate, lifesitenews, remnant etc etc websites but they will not change anything.
For those that missed Mark Mallett's post from earlier, it has much merit on this thread, especially the second to last paragraph as follows: "Brothers and sisters, I am moving on in these writings to focus on Our Lady’s plan as she continues to reveal it in this hour. Everything else is a distraction as far as I am concerned. There is much hope, grace, and power that Christ desires to pour upon His Bride. So surrender your fears to Him and lean on His promises, because He is faithful and true". Schism? Not On My Watch THE NOW WORD ON MASS READINGS for Friday, September 1st – 2nd, 2016 Liturgical texts here Associated Press I have returned from Mexico, and am eager to share with you the powerful experience and words that came to me in prayer. But first, to address the concerns noted in a few letters this past month… ONE of the most moving and perhaps relatable texts in the Gospels is the moment when Jesus fills Peter’s nets to overflowing. So moved by the Lord’s power and presence, Peter falls to his knees and declares, Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man. (Yesterday’s Gospel) Who among us who has genuinely begun the journey into self-knowledge has not uttered these words themselves? Part of the liberating message of the Gospel is not only the truths of Jesus’ moral teachings, but the truth of who I am, and who I’m not in light of them. For Peter, true self-knowledge seems to begin at this moment and grows the more he walks with Jesus. In fact, Peter is one of the few Apostles whose foibles and follies are put on display throughout the Gospel narrative. It is a reminder to us that the rock on which the Church is built is a rock precisely because he is divinely supported. …upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven… I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail… (Matt 16:18; Luke 22:32) And that is precisely the point of why I have defended the office of Peter over the course of three pontificates now: it’s an office established, supported, and guided by Jesus Christ Himself. This is not to say that “Peter” cannot be a weak, “sinful man”, as most of us are. As history has shown from the beginning, the papacy has been occupied by men who have scandalized that office. In fact, Peter’s “theology” of the Messiah was wrong from the start, right from the moment he received the Keys: From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” (Matt 16:21-23) That is to say that even “the rock” can get stuck in worldly thinking. Indeed, the history of the papacy is scarred by men who were greedy, fathered children, and were more concerned with power than the proclamation of the Gospel. As for Peter, even Paul rebuked him “because he clearly was wrong.” [1] Paul… …saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel… (Gal 2:14) Turns out, Peter was trying to be “welcoming” one way with the Jews and another with the Gentiles, but in such a way that he was “not on the right road in line with the gospel.” Fast forward to 2016. Once again, many are raising the alarm that some of the Pope’s statements are confusing and ambiguous. That Amoris Laetitia is in contradiction to John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor. That Francis’ concept of “welcoming” is inconsistent with his predecessors. And from what I have read, it appears that Pope Francis’ recent document may indeed require clarifications if not corrections. No one, a pope included, has the authority to alter the Sacred Tradition that has been handed onto us for 2000 years. As Jesus said in today’s Gospel, No one tears a piece from a new cloak to patch an old one. Otherwise, he will tear the new… And no one who has been drinking old wine desires new, for he says, “The old is good.” The “old cloth” of Sacred Tradition cannot be merged with novel materials contrary to the natural moral law; the old wine is good until the end of time. Now, that is one thing. But the declarations by some “conservative” Catholics that Pope Francis is a False Prophet and heretic who is deliberately destroying the Church is another. Some of these Catholics have scolded me for simply quoting Pope Francis at all, even when those quotes are doctrinally sound and when I am clearly teaching in accord with Sacred Tradition. Two tragic things have happened to these individuals, in my opinion. One is that they have lost faith in Matthew 16 and in Christ’s promise that, despite the weakness and even sinfulness of “Peter”, the gates of hell will not prevail. They are convinced that Pope Francis can and will destroy the Church. The second tragedy is that they have set themselves up as judges, determining that everything good the Pope says is a duplicitous lie, and everything ambiguous or confusing is intentional. They trust more in obscure private revelation or Protestant theories that the Pope is some kind of antichrist than they do in the promises of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they frequently write me to declare that I am blind, oblivious, and in danger. They want me, instead, to use this apostolate to attack the Holy Father’s perceived shortcomings, flaws and failures. So let me make it absolutely clear: I will never use this blog to create, lead or foment a schism. I am and always will be a Roman Catholic, in communion with the Vicar of Christ. And I will continue to lead my readership to remain in communion with the Holy Father, to remain upon the rock, even if that means we may arrive at a “Peter and Paul” moment when the Pope needs to be respectfully challenged and criticized. Those who feel I am out to lunch are free to cease their support and unsubscribe. For my part, I will continue on the same path I have been since I began my ministry some 25 years ago: to remain a faithful son in the only Church that Christ established, the Catholic Church. Part of that faithfulness is to support by my prayers and filial love the shepherds whom Jesus has placed over us. Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17) As for those who wish to judge the motives of Pope Francis, St. Paul might say: I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God. (Today’s first reading) Brothers and sisters, I am moving on in these writings to focus on Our Lady’s plan as she continues to reveal it in this hour. Everything else is a distraction as far as I am concerned. There is much hope, grace, and power that Christ desires to pour upon His Bride. So surrender your fears to Him and lean on His promises, because He is faithful and true. Commit to the LORD your way; trust in him, and he will act. He will make justice dawn for you like the light; bright as the noonday shall be your vindication. (Today’s Psalm)
You know David I don't follow lifesite news or any of the others that are not in favour of Our Holy Father [in fact I am very ignorant in all these matters], so when they are placed on the MOG forum I read with a type of innocent dismay. However what I do hear on a very local level about our Holy Father is opposite to these news articles [well at least here in Australia]. Over the last 10 years most of our churches in most of the country areas of Australia and even in larger cities have been closed during the week due to the threat of vandalism and this has been so depressing and painful for so many faithful [and others]!. I have often driven to my church and other churches [where I know my Jesus is and I park outside] but I can't go inside and so I love him as best I can from my parked car. So many people are deprived of being with Our Lord! And then I find out that Our Holy Father Pope Francis has asked the bishops and priests throughtout the world to open the doors of the churches again! Well this has happened in our parishes and I am so greatful to Our Holy Father that he has did this, for us the little and small people of God. God Bless him in this! He has given me back my world! So I don't understand some of the venom that I hear or read in regards to Pope Francis. I have a different opinion of him, so how can this be, when Jesus says....... Luke 11: 18 17But Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and a house divided against a house will fall. 18If Satans is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? After all you say that I drive out demons by Beelzebul.19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.…
What you hear 'on a very local level', Josephite, is sound and should help you not to get too discouraged by the websites I mentioned. They have their own agenda. But thankfully there are still good websites out there including Mark Mallett's from which fatima quotes above. God has truly given the Church a treasure in Pope Francis but we shouldn't be surprised that the devil fights so strongly against him. We just need to remain faithful.
What a weak cop out from Mark. '' Everything else is a distraction as far as I am concerned''. MM It is not a distraction to question the direction of Pope Francis. Mark knows he can no longer spin it sufficiently[ wake up Janet] so has given up. With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis Part III of III "Have you no sense of alarm about the divisions you have provoked within the Church, with some bishops departing from the teaching of your predecessors on the divorced and 'remarried,' solely on your purported authority, while others attempt to maintain the bimillenial doctrine and practice you have labored without ceasing to overthrow?" A Joint Statement from The Remnant and Catholic Family News Michael J. Matt, Christopher Ferrara & John Vennari (click here for Part I) - (click here for Part II) PART III A “Pastoral Practice” at War with Doctrine You have approved as the only correct interpretation of Amoris a moral calculus that would in practice undermine the whole moral order, not just the norms of sexual morality you obviously seek to subvert. For the application of virtually any moral norm can be deemed “unfeasible” by a talismanic invocation of “complex circumstances” to be “discerned” by a priest or bishop in “pastoral practice” while the norm is piously defended as unchanged and unchangeable as a “general rule.” The nebulous criterion of “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability” could be applied to all manner of habitual mortal sin, including cohabitation—which you have already likened to “true marriage”—“homosexual unions”—whose legalization you have refused to oppose—and contraception, which, incredibly, you have declared is morally permissible in order to prevent the transmission of disease, which the Vatican later confirmed is in fact your view. Thus the Church would “in certain cases” contradict in practice what she teaches in principle regarding morality, meaning that the moral principle is practically overthrown. In the midst of the synodal sham, but without mentioning you, Cardinal Robert Sarah rightly condemned such a specious disjunction between moral precepts and their “pastoral application”: “The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice—which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions—is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology.” Yet, as you would have it, based on “discernment” by local priests or ordinaries, certain people living in an objective condition of adultery can be deemed subjectively inculpable and admitted to Holy Communion without any commitment to an amendment of life even though they know the Church teaches that their relationship is adulterous. In a recent interviewthe renowned Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, a friend of Pope John Paul II and one of the many critics of Amoris whose private entreaties for correction or retraction of the document you have ignored, has publicly noted the moral and pastoral absurdity of what you now explicitly approve: "How should that be applied? Should the priest say to one adulterer: 'You are a good adulterer. You are in the state of grace. You are a very pious person, so you get my absolution without changing your life and you can go to Holy Communion.' And in comes another, and he [the priest] says: 'Oh, you are a real adulterer. You must first confess. You must revoke your life. You must change your life and then you can go to Communion'.” "I mean, how should that work?.... How can a priest be a judge of the soul [and] say that one is a real sinner and the other is only an innocent, good man? I mean that seems completely impossible. Only a priest who would have a kind of Padre Pio vision of souls could possibly say that, and he [Padre Pio] wouldn’t say that…." With your praise and approval, the bishops of Buenos Aires even suggest that children will be harmed if their divorced and “remarried” parents are not permitted to continue engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage while they profane the Blessed Sacrament. One casuitical defender of your departure from sound teaching surmises that this means adultery is only a venial sin if one partner in adultery is under “duress” to continue engaging in adulterous sexual relations because the other partner threatens to leave the children unless he is given sexual satisfaction. According to that moral logic, any mortal sin, including abortion, would be rendered venial merely by one party’s threat to end an adulterous relationship if the sin is not committed. Even worse, it that were possible, the bishops of Buenos Aires, relying solely on your novelties, dare to suggest that people who continue habitually to engage in adulterous sexual relations will grow in grace while sacrilegiously receiving Holy Communion. You have thus contrived no mere “change of discipline” but rather a radical change of underlying moral doctrine that would effectively institutionalize a form of situation ethics in the Church, reducing universally binding, objective moral precepts to mere general rules from which there would be innumerable subjective “exceptions” based on “complex circumstances” and “limitations” that would supposedly reduce habitual mortal sins to venial sins or even mere faults posing no impediment to Holy Communion. But God Incarnate admitted of no such “exceptions” when He decreed by His divine authority: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery (Lk 16:18).” Every one.
At this very moment in Church history, therefore, you are leading the faithful “into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” Indeed, so determined are you to impose your errant will upon the Church that in Amoris (n. 303) you dared to suggest that God Himself condones the continued sexual relations of the divorced and “remarried” if they can do no better in their “complex” circumstances: "Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal." In explicitly approving Holy Communion for select public adulterers in your letter to Buenos Aires you also undermine the ability of more conservative bishops to maintain the Church’s traditional teaching. How can bishops in America, Canada and Poland, for example, continue to insist on the Church’s bimillenial discipline, intrinsically connected to revealed truth, when you have dispensed with it in Buenos Aires on the authority of your “apostolic exhortation”? On what ground will they stand against a swarm of objections now that you have removed the ground of Tradition from beneath their feet? In sum, after years of artful ambiguity regarding the standing of public adulterers with respect to Confession and Holy Communion, you now just as artfully declare the purported overthrow of the Church’s doctrine and practice by employing a “confidential” letter you must have known would be leaked, sent in response to a document from Buenos Aires you may well have solicited as part of the process you have been guiding since the sham “Synod on the Family” was announced. As the Catholic intellectual and author Antonio Socci has written: “It is the first time in the history of the Church that a Pope has placed his signature on an overturning of the moral law.” No previous Pope has ever perpetrated such an outrage. “Exceptions” to the Moral Law Cannot be Confined Curiously enough, however, your novel moral calculus does not seem to apply to the other sins you constantly condemn while carefully observing the bounds of political correctness. Nowhere, for example, do you indicate that “complex circumstances” or “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability” would excuse the Mafiosi you have rhetorically “excommunicated” en masse and warned of Hell, the rich you condemn as “bloodsuckers” or even the observant Catholics you ludicrously accuse of “the sin of divination” and “the sin of idolatry” because they will not accept “the surprises of God”—meaning your novelties. Your entire pontificate seems to have centered on declaring an amnesty for sins of the flesh only, the very sins that,as Our Lady of Fatima warned, send more souls to hell than any other. But what makes you think the moral genie you have let out of the bottle, which you call the “God of surprises,” can be confined only to those moral precepts you deem overly rigid in application? To create exceptions to one exceptionless moral precept is effectively to undo them all. Your novelty attacks the foundations of the Faith and threatens to topple the Church’s entire moral edifice “like a house of cards”—the very outcome you accused observant Catholics of promoting on account of their supposed “rigorism” and attachment to “small-minded rules.” But you are heedless of such obvious consequences. When asked about your approach to opposition from “ultra-conservatives,” meaning orthodox bishops and cardinals, you replied with the insouciant arrogance that is a hallmark of your governance of the Church: “They do their job and I do mine. I want a Church that is open, understanding, that accompanies wounded families. They say no to everything. I go ahead, without looking over my shoulder.” In an astonishing display of haughty contempt for the Church of which you were elected head, you have dared to say: “the Church herself sometimes follows a hard line, she falls into the temptation of following a hard line, into the temptation of stressing only the moral rules, many people are excluded.” Never before has a Pope declared that he will personally remedy the Church’s lack of openness and understanding and her “temptation” to take a “hard line” on morality so as to “exclude” people. Such alarmingly hubristic pronouncements give rise to the distinct impression that your unexpected election represents an almost apocalyptic development. Ignoring All Entreaties, You Forge Ahead with Your “Revolution” As you have gone about your work of destruction, you have ignored every private entreaty addressed to you, including innumerable requests that you affirm that Amoris Laetitia does not depart from prior teaching, as well as a document prepared by a group of Catholic scholars who identified heretical and erroneous propositions inAmoris and pleaded with you to condemn and withdraw them. It is evident you have no intention of accepting fraternal correction from anyone, not even the cardinals who have requested that you “clarify” the conformity of your teaching with the infallible Magisterium. On the contrary, the more alarmed the faithful become, the more boldly you act. Continuing your programmatic loosening in practice of the Church’s moral teaching concerning sexuality, you have authorized the Pontifical Council for the Family to publish the first classroom “sex education” program ever promulgated by the Holy See. One of the associations of lay faithful that has risen to defend the Faith in the face of the hierarchy’s general silence before your onslaught of dissolvent novelties has published a summary of this horrific curriculum, which blatantly violates the Church’s constant teaching against any form of explicit classroom “sex-education”:
• Handing the sexual formation of children over to educators while leaving parents out of the equation. • Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God. • Failing to warn youths about the possibility of eternal separation from God (damnation) for committing grave sexual sins. Hell is not mentioned once.http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/620701cd08ba49e80312ae1ae26d4104-635.html • Failing to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. • Failing to speak about the 6th and 9th commandments, or any other commandment. • Failing to teach about the sacrament of confession as a way of restoring relationship with God after committing grave sin. • Not mentioning a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality. • Teaching boys and girls together in the same class. • Having boys and girls share together in class their understanding of phrases such as: “What does the word sex suggest to you?” • Asking a mixed class to “point out where sexuality is located in boys and girls.” • Speaking about the “process of arousal.” • Using sexually explicit and suggestive images in activity workbooks (here, here, and here). • Recommending various sexually explicit movies as springboards for discussion…. • Failing to speak about abortion as gravely wrong, but only that it causes “strong psychological damage.” • Confusing youths by using phrases such as “sexual relationship” to indicate not the sexual act, but a relationship focused on the whole person. • Speaking of “heterosexuality” as something to be “discover[ed].” • Using [a “gay” celebrity] as an example of a gifted and famous person. • Endorsing the “dating” paradigm as a step towards marriage. • Not stressing celibacy as the supreme form of self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality. • Failing to mention Christ’s teaching on marriage.
30 Beautiful Pope Francis Quotes From His Cuba/U.S. Visit by LIFE TEEN “Jesus’ love goes before us, his look anticipates our needs. He can see beyond appearances, beyond sin, beyond failures and unworthiness. He sees beyond our rank in society. He sees beyond this, to our dignity as sons and daughters, a dignity at times sullied by sin, but one which endures in the depth of our soul. He came precisely to seek out all those who feel unworthy of God, unworthy of others.” “When God comes, he always calls us out of our house. We are visited so that we can visit others; we are encountered so as to encounter others; we receive love in order to give love.” “Families are not a problem, they are first and foremost an opportunity. An opportunity which we have to care for, protect and support. That is a way of saying that they are a blessing.” “What can we do to keep our heart from going numb? GO FORTH and PROCLAIM the Joy of the Gospel.” “Mission is never the fruit of a perfectly planned program or a well-organized manual. Mission is always the fruit of a life which knows what it is to be found and healed, encountered and forgiven. Mission is born of a constant experience of God’s merciful anointing.” “In the face of unjust and painful situations, faith brings us the light which scatters the darkness.” “Faith makes us open to the quiet presence of God at every moment of our lives, in every person and in every situation.” “There are many unjust situations, but we know that God is suffering with us, experiencing them at our side. He does not abandon us.” “Jesus keeps knocking on our doors, the doors of our lives. He doesn’t do this by magic, with special effects, with flashing lights and fireworks. Jesus keeps knocking on our door in the faces of our brothers and sisters, in the faces of our neighbors, in the faces of those at our side.” “The joy of men and women who love God attracts others to him.” “Once we come to realize how much God has given us, a life of self-sacrifice, of working for him and for others, becomes a privileged way of responding to his great love. ” “Love is shown by little things, by attention to small daily signs which make us feel at home. Faith grows when it is lived and shaped by love. That is why our families, our homes, are true domestic churches.” “For all the obstacles we see before us, gratitude and appreciation should prevail over concerns and complaints.” “Life is a journey, along different roads, different paths, which leave their mark on us. We know in faith that Jesus seeks us out. He wants to heal our wounds, to soothe our feet which hurt from traveling alone, to wash each of us clean of the dust from our journey.” “A Christianity which ‘does’ little in practice, while incessantly ‘explaining’ its teachings, is dangerously unbalanced.” “All that is good, all that is true, all that is beautiful brings us to God. Because God is good, God is beautiful, God is the truth.” “But the most beautiful thing that God made, the Bible says, was the family.” “All of the love that God has in Himself, all of the beauty that God has in Himself, all of the truth that God has in Himself, He gives to the family. And a family is truly a family when it is able to open its arms and receive all of this love.” “But in families, there is always, always, the cross. Always. Because the love of God, of the Son of God, also opened for us this path. But, in families as well, after the cross, there is the resurrection. Because the Son of God opened for us this path. Because of this, the family is — forgive the term I’ll use — it is a factory of hope, of hope of life and of resurrection. God was the one who opened this path.” “Division of hearts doesn’t overcome any difficulty. Only love is capable of overcoming difficulties. Love is a festival. Love is joy. Love is to keep moving forward.” “We cannot understand Christ without his Church, just as we cannot understand the Church without her spouse, Christ Jesus, who gave his life out of love, and who makes us see that it is worth the price.” “We cannot call any society healthy when it does not leave real room for family life.” “Perfect families do not exist. This must not discourage us. Quite the opposite. Love is something we learn; love is something we live; love grows as it is ‘forged’ by the concrete situations which each particular family experiences. Love is born and constantly develops amid lights and shadows.” “Big cities bring together all the different ways which we human beings have discovered to express the meaning of life, wherever we may be.” “In Jesus, God himself became Emmanuel, God-with-us, the God who walks alongside us, who gets involved in our lives, in our homes, in the midst of our “pots and pans”, as Saint Teresa of Jesus liked to say.” “Go out to others and share the good news that God, our Father, walks at our side. He frees us from anonymity, from a life of emptiness and selfishness, and brings us to the school of encounter. He removes us from the fray of competition and self-absorption, and he opens before us the path of peace. That peace which is born of accepting others, that peace which fills our hearts whenever we look upon those in need as our brothers and sisters.” “God is living in our cities.” “Wherever there are dreams, there is joy, Jesus is always present.” “…Acts of destruction are never impersonal, abstract or merely material. They always have a face, a concrete story, names.” “To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty, we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny.” http://lifeteen.com/blog/30-beautiful-pope-francis-quotes-from-his-cubau-s-visit/
Cont... The same association observes that the curriculum “violates norms previously promulgated by the very same pontifical council.” Another lay association protests that it “makes frequent use of sexually explicit and morally objectionable images, fails to clearly identify and explain Catholic doctrine from elemental sources including the Ten Commandments and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compromises the innocence and integrity of young people under the rightful care of their parents.” Lay leaders in the Catholic family movement have rightly denounced it as “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.” As one of them declared: “Parents must not be under any illusion: the pontificate of Pope Francis marks the surrender of the Vatican authorities to the worldwide sexual revolution and directly threatens their own children.” But this radical departure from prior teaching and practice is only in keeping with the novelties of Amoris, which proclaims “the need for sex education” in “educational institutions” while completely ignoring the Church’s traditional teaching that parents, not teachers in classrooms, have the primary responsibility to provide any necessary instruction to their children in this most sensitive area, taking care not to “descend to details” but rather to “employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.” Your “revolution” is hardly confined to matters sexual, however. You have also recently convened a commission, including six women, to “study” the matter of women “deacons,” which was already studied by a Vatican commission in 2002. That commission concluded that the diaconate belongs to the ordained clerical state along with the priesthood and the episcopacy and that so-called “deaconesses” in the early Church were not ordained ministers but only ecclesial helpers with no more authority than nuns, who performed limited services for women, but certainly not baptisms or marriages. The “deaconettes” you seem to contemplate would thus be nothing more than women masquerading in clerical garb, as women cannot possibly receive any degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As you continue to undermine respect for the utter seriousness and supernatural character of sacramental marriage it seems you are preparing to undermine further an already drastically diminished respect for the male priesthood. What is next? Perhaps a “relaxation” of the apostolic tradition of clerical celibacy, which you have already declared is “on my agenda.” And now, as your “revolution” continues to accelerate, you prepare to depart for Sweden in October, where you will participate in a joint “prayer service” with a married Lutheran “bishop,” head of the pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage” Lutheran World Federation, to “commemorate” the so-called Reformation launched by Martin Luther. It is inconceivable that a Roman Pontiff would dignify the memory of this maniac, the most destructive heretic in the history of the Church, who shattered the unity of Christendom and opened the way to endless violence and bloodshed and the collapse of morals throughout Europe. As Luther infamously declared: “If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of the Mass is overthrown, then the whole will fall.” It is supremely ironic that the arch-heretic you intend to honor with your presence uttered those words in a letter to Henry VIII, who led all of England into schism because the Pope would not accommodate his desire for divorce and “remarriage,” including access to the sacraments. Cont...
“Vanity is the osteoporosis of the soul” At this morning’s mass in St. Martha’s House, the Pope said: Vanity “masks life, it harms us and makes us a fraud”. Those who live with a dirty conscience are plagued by an itch that won’t go away 22/09/2016 DOMENICO AGASSO JR VATICAN CITY There are two kinds of anxiety one has to live with and deal with: one is “good”, the other is “bad”. The first comes from the Holy Spirit and from acting according to the Word of God; the other stems from a dirty conscience or vanity which “masks life, like an osteoporosis of the soul”. This was Francis’ core message at this morning’s mass in St. Martha’s House. During the mass, the Pope attacked “the roots of all evil”: pride, greed and vanity which he said was the worst of the three, Vatican Radio reports. Today’s Gospel passage describes King Herod as being anxious because, having had John the Baptist killed, he now felt threatened by Jesus. “There can be two different kinds of anxiety in the soul,” Pope Francis said. “A ‘good’ anxiety, which the Holy Spirit gives us and which makes the soul restless to do good things” and “a ‘bad’ anxiety, that which is born from a dirty conscience”. These people “who had done such evil, who does evil and has a dirty conscience and cannot live in peace, because they live with a continual itch, with a continual rash that does not leave them in peace… These people have done evil, but evil always has the same root, any evil: greed, vanity, and pride.” All three roots “do not leave the conscience in peace,” Pope Francis warned. They “do not allow the healthy restlessness of the Holy Spirit to enter, but bring you to live like this: anxiously, with fear. Greed, vanity, and pride,” the Pope criticised, “are the roots of all evils.” The day’s First Reading, taken from Ecclesiastes, speaks about vanity, which “makes us swell up. The vanity that does not have long life, because it is like a soap bubble. The vanity that does not give us true gain. What profit comes to the person for all the effort he puts into worrying? He is anxious to appear, to pretend, to seem. This is vanity.” Put simply, the Pope emphasised, “vanity is covering up real life. And this makes the soul sick. Because in the end, if they cover up their real life in order to appear or to seem a certain way, all the things they do to pretend… What is gained? Vanity is like an osteoporosis of the soul: the bones seem good on the outside, but within they are totally ruined. Vanity makes us a fraud.” Francis reiterated that just as con men “mark the cards” in order to win but “this victory is a fiction, it’s not true”, so vanity is about living in pretence, living to seem, living to appear. And this makes the soul restless”. The Pope quoted St. Bernard, who said to the vain: “Think of what you will be: food for worms.” Following on the saint’s thought, the Pope said, before going on to ask himself: “What power does vanity have?” “It does not allow you to see your mistakes, it covers everything, everything is covered”. “How many people do we know that appear one way,” Francis pointed out. “‘What a good person! He goes to Mass every Sunday. He makes great donations to the Church.’ This is how they appear, but the osteoporosis is the corruption they have within. There are people like this – but there are also holy people!– who do this.” This is vanity: “You try to appear with a face like a pretty picture, and yet your truth is otherwise.” “Where is our strength and security, our refuge then? We read it in the psalm between the readings: ‘Lord, you have been our refuge from generation to generation.’ And before the Gospel we recalled the words of Jesus: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ This is the truth, not the cosmetics of vanity. May the Lord free us from these three roots of all evil: greed, vanity, and pride. But especially from vanity, that makes us so bad.” http://www.lastampa.it/2016/09/22/v...f-the-soul-BG8XWmXqtmYWg6LbjYN8LO/pagina.html
This is the end game in all this: "Then again, Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, a notorious archliberal whom Francis elevated to this major episcopal key, has already gone beyond mere sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages” to declare that even those involved in “homosexual unions” involving the habitual practice of sodomy may approach the Blessed Sacrament if they “come to a decision in good conscience” and that the Church should “help them move forward and to respect that.”" http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective890.asp
Well, Brian has shared on three threads this LIE from Christopher Ferrara's website so please allow me to respond in turn on the three threads. "Then again, Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, a notorious archliberal whom Francis elevated to this major episcopal key, has already gone beyond mere sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages” to declare that even those involved in “homosexual unions” involving the habitual practice of sodomy may approach the Blessed Sacrament if they “come to a decision in good conscience” and that the Church should “help them move forward and to respect that.”" Note that the text in red was NOT said by the Archbishop and the Archbishop would be strongly against Holy Communion being given to such unions.
What exactly does the term "homosexual union" mean then? Are they playing Tiddly Winks with each other?
Well of course Ferrara's article is very 'free' with its wording. His article is based on a report from the NCR which states: Asked if he would likewise accompany homosexual couples into receiving the sacraments according to their consciences, Archbishop Cupich replied: “Gay people are human beings, too; they have a conscience, and my role as a pastor is to help them to discern what the will of God is by looking at the objective moral teaching of the Church.” The Archbishop's words are totally consistent with the Catholic Catechism: 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
And while we are at it, here is another relevant quote from the Catholic Catechism: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. 278 He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; 279 - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Here is a much less biased and mainstream periodical: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...whether-divorced-remarried-and-homosexual-cou It says essentially the same thing. Stop mincing words David. And this this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. As always it is PART of the teaching. The Church does not teach that conscience is "everything". Under Canon 915 ministers have a duty and an obligation not to give communion to these couples. This is Church teaching! First of all any homosexuals who are a "couple" are at best constantly putting themselves in a near occasion of sin. They would need to remove themselves from that "couplehood" before receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Should they be accompanied gently and with great care? YES! But the Body and Blood of Our Lord should not be defiled!
That is the site that I quoted from!! Brian's quote from Ferrara's site is spreading a LIE. I'm finished with this, especially in triplicate!
Why do I doubt it? http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1354 Two thoughtful critiques of the Pope's approach By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Sep 28, 2016 "Has Pope Francis Failed?" by Matthews Schmitz is a remarkable little essay, not only because it is persuasively argued, but also because it appears today in, of all places, the New York Times! The fact that the Times would run such a piece is, in a way, evidence for the author's thesis. Schmitz reports that although Pope Francis undoubtedly won popular attention early in his pontificate, the "Francis effect" has not been visible in the longer term. Mass attendance continues to slide, as does participation in other sacraments. "In spite of Francis' personal popularity," Schmitz writes, "young people seem to be drifting away from the faith." Nor has there been any notable increase in converts to replace the young Catholics who defect. Thus while the "approval ratings" for the Pope himself remain high, the ratings for the Catholic Church continue to slip. Is that a coincidence, or are the two facts (and they are facts) related? Would a Pontiff who was more vigorous in upholding traditional Church teachings be more successful in bringing people into the fold? Liberal Catholic commentators, responding to the Schmitz essay on Twitter, have made the argument that the shrinkage of the active Catholic population is attributable to secularization, and cannot be blamed on the current Pope. No doubt that's true. But what we can say is that the unusual pastoral approach taken by Pope Francis has failed to change the secularizing trend. The expectation that Pope Francis might reverse that trend, by stepping aside from the "culture wars," has been proven wrong. For that matter—as Schmitz also demonstrates—the initial excitement that Pope Francis would bring fresh winds of reform to the Vatican has also dissipated, as the promise of sweeping change in the Roman Curia has given way to reality that a few offices will be merged, a few other new offices created, but the "old guard" and the old way of business remain intact. For First Things, meanwhile, Villanova theologian Jessica Murdoch argues against "Creeping Infallibility," with a critical eye on Amoris Laetitia—or, to be more precise, on those (such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn) who have claimed that the apostolic exhortation should be regarded as an act of the magisterium, requiring the assent of the faithful. Murdoch explains, thoroughly and clearly, how different papal statements command different levels of assent. To be authoritative, she explains, a papal document must be clear, must be read in continuity with previous magisterial statements, and above all must be demonstrably in accord with Revelation. She argues that Amoris Laetitia does not meet those tests, and along the way she details why the document does not constitute a "development of doctrine" by Cardinal Newman's criteria. All this does not mean, of course, that Amoris Laetitia should be disregarded. Murdoch's point is that the Pope's document does not definitely settle the questions that are clearly still in dispute among the faithful. (One test of an authoritative doctrinal statement is that it should represent what the faithful have always and everywhere believed. No one could possible claim that the Kasper Proposal qualifies.) "Distinctions are necessary," Murdoch writes. "And for this reason any sort of 'creeping infallibility' that would attach the same level of authority to every papal utterance or document must be avoided." Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
