I would be reluctant to put forward arguments which seem to come right from the devil in case they put people into temptation. If you really want to see them go online to one of the Jesuit publications .
I suppose this was the Ooder the Devil would naturally attack first. The ELite; the Green Berets. I am sure there must be many Holy Ones and many saints amongst them. But at the moment it is very hard to see this. But it must be so. They can't all have gone bad.
Well this isn't Carol but I listened closely and it did appear that Bishop Shneider agreed to Michaels comment of Bugnini being a freemason. I'm not sure but I just started reading a book called Annibale Bugnini Reformer of the Liturgy and am curious how this book will end. Right now with the little I have read, I know Buggnini was very much influenced by modernist views which began in the early 1900's. The Liturgical movement in France after WWII would begin to form study groups to discuss changes in the Liturgy which were experimental at first and then would evolve into the real changes we see now. There is no doubt Bugnini had a real underhandedness about him in regards to this comment by a Fr. Duploye about Bugnini during a "Center de Pastoral Liturgique" conference on Sept 16-22 1946 "The Father listened very attentively, (Fr.Bugnini) without saying a word, for four days. As we were traveling back to Paris and the train was passing Piece d'eau des Suisse ornamental basin in Versailles, he told me: I admire what you are doing, but the greatest favor I can do you is never to say a word in Rome of what I have just been hearing." Also involved in this study group was none other than Fr. Yves Congar, OP on The Organization of Pastoral Activity and of teaching Ecclesiology. Fr. Congar whose controversial writings were restricted from the Vatican,.. Congar who was prevented from teaching or publishing after 1954 during the pontificate of Pope Pius Xll would be recovered at the invitation of Pope John XXlll to serve on the preparatory theological commission of the Second Vatican Council. He was created cardinal 26 November 1994 with his term ending 22 June 1995?
Was Bugnini the Cardinal who was transferred to Iran after masonic documents were found in a briefcase he left in a conference room in the Vatican?
He has uploaded a video to youtube explaining why he removed the idols from the church and describing how he went about it. He had spoken to people at the exhibition in Sta. Maria in Traspontina and they told him that missionaries don't baptise the indigenous people because it's against their culture. That fits with the reports about the Bishop saying he won't baptise people in the Amazon (which the Bishop now denies). If that's true, it means that the Church is about to ordain married men and women for the unbaptised to receive the Eucharist. Here's the video:
I was surprised to see Cardinal Schonborn front and centre at the press briefing after the idols were thrown in the river. Then I put it down to the Cardinal being the Vatican's smooth operator brought out to explain away any apparent rupture with Catholic teaching (remember Pope Francis telling everyone that Cardinal Schonborn would explain Amoris Laetitia). At the press briefing, Cardinal Schonborn made a nasty comment at about pro-lifers destroying a symbold of a pregnant woman. I'm wondering now whether the Vatican were aware of the nationality of the man who removed the statues.
Malachi Martin was very clear about Bugnini being a mason as I recall. I remember him saying that bugnini was the one who utterly changed the Mass. He said as far as I can recall "Bugnini has a lot to answer for. Poor Anibale. If he didn't know it then he knows it now." (Referring to Bugnini's death)
Blizzard, Thank you for posting this. I think this is the first time that I listened/watched one of Taylor Marshall's podcasts live and this one was very, very good. I think it was just short of being 2 hours long but it flew by. It was so great! Thank you again. May God bless Alexander Tschugguel and his camera man too! +
I thought that I read that Pope Francis was considering a synod in May to discuss synodality but this article states that it may not occur until 2021. Nov. 1, 2019 Postscript: Smoke From Amazon Synod Affects the Lungs of the Whole Church GUEST EDITORIAL: The Pan-Amazon synod manifested a certain lack of ‘care for all the Churches’ in three ways. Father Raymond J. de Souza | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...n-synod-affects-the-lungs-of-the-whole-church A venerable phrase kept occurring to me during the last days of the Pan-Amazon synod: sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium. It means the “care for all the Churches” and refers to the governance of the entire Church universal. Had this necessary care for the welfare of the Church as a whole been sufficiently present, I wondered, throughout the synod’s controversial deliberations? The Amazon synod, which closed Oct. 27, highlighted the need for all bishops to recover a fuller sense of their sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium in the pastoral care of the entire flock of Christ. The governance of the Church universal is entrusted to the entire College of Bishops, which acts in two ways, according to Vatican II: through its head alone, the pope, and as a body united to its head, the pope. Each individual bishop, therefore, has not only the care of the particular Church (diocese) entrusted to him, but participates in the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium, in the care for all the local Churches united in the one flock of Christ. It was, by the way, the title given to the papal bull of 1814, whereby Pope Pius VII re-established the Society of Jesus after it had been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773. The phrase was not in my mind due to the prominence of Jesuits in this current moment of the Church’s life, beginning with the novelty of a Jesuit pope. It came to mind because the Amazon synod manifested a certain lack, to my mind, of the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium in three ways. First, there is the pastoral problem of access to the sacraments in the remote areas of the Amazon. This is not a new problem in the history of the Church, and it even earned the attention of the Second Vatican Council, which sought to address the imbalance in the global distribution of priests by creating new structures for priests to serve in lands far away from their home dioceses. That’s where the idea of “personal prelatures” came from, though none have been set up to address the distribution of priests around the world. The only personal prelature erected has been for Opus Dei, but for quite different canonical reasons. The sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium has, in practice, usually meant that bishops are willing to share their priests for ministries outside their dioceses — in the missions, in seminaries, in universities, in the military, in the Roman Curia and national bishops’ conferences, in various associations of the faithful and for particular needs. The Amazon synod did not emphasize an intensified sharing of priests, but, rather, new measures — married priests; studying a “diaconate” for women — that have not been previously employed elsewhere. The synod fathers were not seized with the conviction that their sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium meant providing themselves for the remote regions within their own countries. Second, the synod participants did not appear to give much weight to the impact that their deliberations would have on other parts of the Church. Considering “new paths” for the Amazon without thinking them through as part of a universal Church is a failure of the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium. A particular bishop, or group of bishops, cannot regard themselves as somehow apart from the Church universal, unconcerned with how their decisions will have a wider effect. Strangely, though, there were some synod voices that did consider the wider impact, but not so much with concern for other local Churches, but, rather, with an agenda to impose. Using the particular urgencies of the Amazonian situation as an entry point to changing universal disciplines is turning the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium inside out and upside down. Instead of a local Church looking to serve the needs of the universal Church, there is instead a desire to exert pressure on the universal Church to change in order to accommodate the local. Third, the whole Church was watching the Pan-Amazon synod, and there was no shortage of bishops who were concerned by what they saw and heard. They remained, with few exceptions, silent. Part of this was an ecclesial courtesy, allowing the synod the freedom to discuss and deliberate absent external pressure. But now that the synod is over and its final report published, the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium invites bishops who were not part of the synod to offer their contributions. For example, the Amazon is not the only remote place where access to the sacraments can be difficult. Decisions taken for the Amazon will then have wider implications. Bishops in other parts of the world ought to share their wisdom about that. Theology is not a regional exercise; if there are theological concerns about Amazonian matters, they are theological concerns for the whole Church. A local bishop ought not to content himself with the idea that the Amazon is not his diocese and therefore is not his concern. At the heart of the Amazon synod was the question of the Church as a missionary enterprise. Almost all parts of the Church outside of Europe have to address what it means for the Gospel to encounter indigenous peoples, either today or in the past. Indeed, the very missionary identity and integrity of the Church is at risk. Every bishop must be concerned about that. Pope Francis suggested that perhaps the next synod in 2021 might be on “synodality” itself, examining how the Church ought to govern herself. Structures do change over time, but the charge to the apostles — their care and governance of the entire Church — remains perpetually valid, a charge that includes the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarium.
