My loyalty is to Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, True man and True God. For Him I am prepared to shed my blood!
Yes. We cannot leave the Church. St. Athanasius never left even though the whole structure was infested with heretics. He stayed inside and fought them. We must cling on inside, even if it means we are a sub-Church of some type and only go to certain churches for Mass, etc.
Voris is too smart to make such a declaration. While he has done some good work, this shambolic papacy is to news outlets like his what mass murders are to tabloid secular papers. If it bleeds it leads, and the Deposit of the Faith has been in almost permanent haemorrhage since 2013. Even if Cardinal Burke has lodged a correction, it is too late because any Church Council or Conclave will be dominated by clones of Pope Francis hell bent on "developing" his "doctrine". Next Sunday is the 13th October. I'll be praying to Our Lady of Fatima for the grace to sustain me through this nightmare because it could go on for the rest of this papacy and at least one more after that. Our trust in the promise Jesus made to the Church will be sorely tested.
Interesing that the liberal media have been hyping up a possible schism in the Church in the last few days Pope faces 'threat of religious coup from traditionalists in Catholic Church' https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...-donald-trump-steve-bannon-rivals-vatican-spt The enemy within is strong and the end game is that they want schism.
Evil Fake News. Sadly so many of our fellow Catholics will fall for this. So sad. Times call for being bright eyed and bushy tailed.
Perhaps Our Lady will grant us some little sign on Saturday. Even a very small one be welcome. Some ray of Light in the gloom.
What to say to those around us, good Catholics who never think very much on statements coming from the Vatican. I hope Bishops preach the truths. It's hard to know what to say to such innocent people who implicitly trust every word coming from the papacy.
Not owing allegiance to Bergoglio does not imply seperating from the Papacy. If what Scalfari said is true, Bergoglio has in the truest sense removed himself from the papacy. To tolerate the present carry-on is arguably to disrespect the office of the Papacy, to condemn it is to defend the office. To take an analogy, many people disagreed with Barack Obama on moral grounds, because of his support for abortion. Yet, this did not come from a disrespect for the office of the US Presidency or for the United States itself. On the contrary, people objected to Obama's policies out of love and respect for the office he besmirched and for the nation he damaged. We don't enthuse about St. Peter's betrayal of Our Lord. Indeed, if he hadn't repented Peter would only have been remembered as a less wicked Judas. It is all made more difficult by the Bergoglian tactic of 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink', but this has happened too often now to be merely an unfortunate accident or understanding. There comes a time when one is obliged to convict on what might only be circumstantial evidence. To ignore it or to accept it is to tolerate what is spiritual terrorism, and doing more harm than any other kind of terrorism. If Scalfari is lying and misrepresenting Bergoglio, he has an absolute duty to ensure that this lie is denied, because non-denial is too logically an indication of consent in this situation, even if he doesn't actually consent. The faithful cannot be expected to read Bergoglio's mind and his continuing relation with Scalfari lays out all too reasonable a suspicion that Scalfari is reflecting the mind of Bergoglio. If someone said something untruthfully scandalous about a person on one occasion, the victim might choose silence so as not to add fuel to the flames, but no genuine victim would ever speak to that person again. These tactics, for at this stage that's all they can be, having been used so many times and always seemingly with deliberate timing, are abominable. I fear he's having a great laugh over all this.
God will declare the Seat vacant in His own time. We need cool heads now, more than ever. Let us console ourselves that Bergoglio chose a heresy that is absurd. We could call it 'Vacationism', whereby The Word took a thirty-three year holiday from His Eternity of being God.
The only schism in this case would be self-schism. The only appropriate reaction for the rest of us is to 'let him off'.
In the Arian times, the 'ignorant' people were the ones who held fast to the Truth. I think many people are not going to fall for the idea of a part-time God. They mightn't make a big fuss objecting, but I'd think they'll shrug their shoulders and carry on believing in the Christ that's always been believed. It seems to parallel the insanity of identity politics in a way. A disturbed man can declare himself a woman for a while and then decide he's a woman again later and we're all supposed to go along with it...or else. Now we're supposed to accept that the Eternal Word, the Son of God and, in His own Being, God Himself, somehow decided to not be God for thirty-three years of created temporal reality and lo-and-behold go back to being God again at the end of it. Very few really go along with the transexuals, except in some cases to the degree they're intimidated, but even less are going to swallow this bizarre idea. Oh, there are many who will accept it, but they're not Catholic in the first place and will accept anything if it's fashionable.
Sign? How many more signs do we need? Or rather how many more signs do our Bishops need? This reminds me of that old joke about the people who waited for God to rescue them as their house was flooded, rejecting help from the fire brigade, a boat and a helicopter, and after they drowned they asked God why he betrayed their trust in Him. There have been enough signs to convince anyone with a smidgin of wit and a modicum of faith. What will be their excuses to the "God of surprises" for their failure to resist Peter to his face? I didn't see your hand in the revelations about the St. Gallen group or the Catholic Spring plot? I didn't see your hand in the Argentinian woman's revelations? I didn't see your hand in Fr. Weinandy's letter? I didn't see your hand in the Scalfari revelations? I didn't see your hand in the Dubia? I didn't see your hand in the letter from the scholars? I didn't see your hand in the Vigano revelations? I didn't see your hand in the Chilean debacle? I didn't see your hand in Cardinal Muller's revelation about being interrupted saying Mass? I didn't see your hand in the revelations about the paedophile being restored to the priesthood? I didn't see your hand when the theologians' declaring Pope Francis to be a heretic?The list grows by the day. Incidentally, here's Canonist Edward Peters' take on the Alison situation: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/alisons-claim-binds-no-one/ Is there anyone alive who doesn't believe that Pope Francis can't (or hasn't already) line up two witnesses or an ecclesiastical notary for an oral restoration of Alison's priestly faculties?
@garabandal - your posts in this thread express my views entirely. What a nightmare we face upon wakening
You know @padraig I thought the same driving to work today - trying to figure out what day of the week the 13th is this year. Let’s hope for a miracle in the sky over Rome. Or, a miracle in the heart of Francis.
I’m still furiously mad today. But plan on going to confession later this evening. I’ve a long list to confess. My sanity can’t take much more of this circus in Rome, it really can’t. I hope the priest doesn’t tell me I’m rigid in confession later, or I’ll probably enter some lengthy unresponsive catatonic state. Joking aside I actually do regret allowing myself to get so angry. But sometimes it really is just impossible to contain raw emotion.
