The pope’s biographer Austen Ivereigh said that Francis denied calling Cardinal Burke his enemy. “I never used the word ‘enemy,’ nor the pronoun ‘my,’” Francis wrote in a note to Mr. Ivereigh. Francis also told Mr. Ivereigh that he had decided to strip Cardinal Burke of his Vatican apartment and salary because the American prelate had been acting against the unity of the church. Ivereigh obviously has a hotline to the Pope's office.
Being an antipope does not make someone the False Prophet or the AC. We’ve had 40 of them so far, none of them were the AC or False Rophet, and there’s nothing preventing the Church from having another antipope now or in the future. I’ve made my own opinion on this matter known. But only the Church can decide if a papal claimant is or was an antipope. That will happen, relatively “soon” in my opinion. If the Church fails in her duty to clarify this matter, God will directly intervene. I fully expect the latter.
Ivereigh simply cannot be believed. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-danneels-biographers-retract-comments-on-st-gallen-group Cardinal Danneels' Biographers Retract Comments on St. Gallen Group But the cardinal's assertion that the secretive "mafia-like" group existed and opposed Joseph Ratzinger still stands Edward PentinSeptember 26, 2015 Cardinal Danneels at a launch of the new authorized biography. (photo: Screenshot) The authors of a new authorized biography of Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the archbishop emeritus of Mechelen-Brussels, have issued a correction to earlier comments quoted in a Belgian newspaper and which I reported here. Karim Schelkens and Jürgen Mettepenningen, authors of Godfried Danneels Biographie, have stressed that the “St. Gallen club” of reformist prelates was not a lobby group that prepared for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to be elected Pope. They say their quote in the original article in “Le Vif”, which had said “the election of Bergoglio was prepared in St. Gallen” by Cardinal Danneels and others, was a mistake made "after their approval and correction" of the quote. Now they have stated that the “election of Bergoglio corresponded with the aims of St. Gallen, on that there is no doubt. And the outline of its program was that of Danneels and his confreres who had been discussing it for ten years.” They stressed that, as this goal was not met in the 2005 conclave, and the St. Gallen club no longer convened after 2006, their original quote gave the false impression that it was a lobby group rather than an informal one. Cardinal Danneels this week referred to it as a kind of "mafia" club. Despite this, according to the new biography, after 2003 the St. Gallen group became of "strategic importance" with regards the 2005 conclave. The authors stress in the book that with its array of members including Cardinals José da Cruz Policarpo, then Patriarch of Lisbon, as well as Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Murphy-O'Connor, Silvestrini, Husar, Kasper and Lehmann, members of the St. Gallen group felt it could have “significant impact” if each of them used their network of contacts. The authors further write that in the days leading up to the 2005 conclave, cardinals of the group sent a postcard to Bishop Ivo Fürer, founder of the group, with the message: "We are here in the spirit of Sankt Gallen."* Cardinal Danneels’ two biographers do not mention in the book lobbying by ex-members of the group during the 2013 conclave. In The Great Reformer, Austen Ivereigh writes that members of the disbanded group and others, whom he calls “Team Bergoglio”, did not ask Cardinal Bergoglio if he would be willing to be a candidate, but they believed this time that the crisis in the Church would make it hard for him to refuse if elected. This was in accordance with conclave rules, and corrected an earlier version of the book which stated that "Team Bergoglio" seized the initiative in the days leading up to the 2013 conclave to “promote their man," first confirming with with the cardinal that he was willing to become Pope, and then canvassed on his behalf. Still, although the secretive club hadn’t formally met since 2006, it’s safe to say that it helped form a network that paved the way for at least favoring Cardinal Bergoglio at the conclave seven years later. In their chapter on St. Gallen, the authors of Cardinal Danneels’ authorized biography say the group, which was founded in 1995, met annually to discuss various themes including 'the situation of the Church', 'primacy of the Pope', 'collegiality', and 'John Paul II's succession’. Its members also discussed centralism in the Church, the function of bishops’ conferences, development of the priesthood, sexual morality, the appointment of bishops, and other such issues, the authors write. Schelkens and Mettepenningen also note in the chapter that the personalities and theological ideas of the members sometimes differed, but one thing united them: their dislike of the then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In a later chapter on the resignation of Pope Benedict and the 2013 conclave, the authors say Cardinal Danneels was “confounded” ('verbijsterd' in Dutch) when he heard the news of the resignation. But he “admired” ('bewonderde') Benedict’s courage. They write also that the cardinal and Benedict XVI had a sort of reconciliation meeting in September 2012. The late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini, a leading "reformer" in the St. Gallen group, had suggested this to Pope Benedict shortly before his death. On February, 27th 2013, Cardinal Danneels gave a press conference in which he gave high praise for Benedict, saying his style resembled the early Church fathers and even noted his “enormous efforts” to bring back the Society of St. Pius X, saying it showed him "to be a reconciler”. The cardinal then offered his own “wish-list” for the Church. This included unity in diversity (to be achieved through decentralization), synods to develop a better culture of debate, the formation of a “crown council”, and reform of the Curia. He also said careerism in the Vatican should be ended and he recommended a Third Vatican Council. At the end of the conference, he said: "We need a Francis", according to the book’s authors. (p. 496). Cardinal Danneels says in the book the pre-conclave meetings were some of the “most interesting” meetings of his career as a cardinal, thanks to the openness of the discussions. He was particularly happy that the Pope wished to create a crown council, and that one of its members would be Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, the archbishop of Kinshasa. He and Cardinal Danneels have been good friends since the 1980s. Along with Cardinal Danneels, the African cardinal is also one of the 45 papal delegates at the upcoming Synod.
Yes, thanks. Gracie was very attention starved, almost indignant at my prolonged absence, and very hungry. My friends here were feeding her along with their four outdoor cats but I suspect their cats were keeping Gracie from the food dish.
Apparently it has not been possible for a US citizen to make a financial claim against the Vatican for sex abuse. This is because the Vatican is regarded as a foreign entity as it claims that each US diocese is independent and only a diocese or archdiocese can be sued. However, the sacking of a local Bishop (Strickland) by the Pope personally may well have robbed the Vatican of this, so far successful, defence in US courts. If those many US victims and alleged victims whose compensation has been limited by diocesan and archdiocesan bankruptcies now choose to sue the Vatican, it seems that they will succeed and as the assets in artworks, real estate and cash are so astronomic, the Pope's decision to remove the good bishop could result in enormous claims against the Vatican. Ironic or what? Pope Francis May Have Just Accidentally Saved My Church by Bankrupting It (complicitclergy.com)
Believing Francis to be an Anti-Pope doesn't give anyone the right to accuse him of being the False Prophet of Revelation. You can't possibly know what is in the minds of the majority of Catholics who make such scurrilous accusations against Pope Francis. And I have seen comments from supposedly faithful Catholics deriding the Ordinary Form of the Mass, more than a few questioning whether transubstantiation happens when the priest isn't up to their standards. People have a right to criticise if they do so with charity and in good faith. Much of the criticism goes too far. I think it was Pope Benedict who first praised Luther's passion for Christ and the Gospel. I have been one of those who went too far with my criticism of Pope Francis. I questioned whether Benedict had been forced to resign and whether the election of Francis was legal. It has been clearly explained by people eminently qualified to do so that anything untoward in the procedure was cancelled out once the universal Church accepted Francis as Pope. I had some lingering doubts about his apparent failure to correct the German Bishops but now it transpires that he is having the Vatican departments deal with the German Bishops, setting them straight on official Church teaching. We might not like his failure to publicly correct the German Bishops compared to his harsh treatment of faithful Bishops but, as long as he sees to it that they are corrected, he has met the minimum standard of his duty. Even if there remain questions about how he manages the Church, I know that I don't have the authority to cast doubt on his right to manage as he see fit. Supreme Pontiff means exactly what it says. By the way, I shouldn't have voiced my poor opinion of Michael Lofton in a previous post. Doing so made me guilty of showing far less charity that I accused Lofton of having towards Catholics he disagrees with. I apologise for that.
Saint John warned us that whoever denies the father and the son is essentially an antichrist; I personally do not see the logic in a pope being the antichrist because Jews and Muslims would never accept him as their savior, however Francis' interviews with Eugênio Scalfari gave light to statements that undermine the believers' belief in the divinity of Christ and also in the existence from hell; On neither occasion did Pope Francis publicly deny Scalfari's reports; however, when it comes to denouncing ecological sins, he speaks very clearly and incisively, implying that the defense of the environmental and ecological cause is more important than a fundamental dogma of faith; It is for these and other reasons that so many faithful Catholics relate him to the antichrist or the false prophet.
Thank you Whatever for sharing your thoughts. I feel chastened for my lack of charity, particularly in my participation on this discussion. Who am I to criticize a decision that is way beyond my station in life? I needed this reminder, again, thank you.
“Sheen then reminded that Our Lord told us that this devil, the anti-Christ, “will be so much like Himself, that he would deceive even the elect — and certainly no devil we have ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect.”
I have been thinking of the Scalfari interviews - they are not reliable because he took no notes and was an old man relying on memory. Scalfari explained his technique in an interview - "I try to understand the person I am interviewing, and after that I write his answers with my own words," He conceded that it is therefore possible that "some of the Pope's words I reported, were not shared by Pope Francis." At a prayer vigil in 2014 when condemning the mafia the Pope challenged them to convert "while there is still time, so that you do not end up in hell. That is what awaits you if you continue on this path." The confusion of this papacy is unprecedented but there is no way Francis is the false prophet of revelation. I just wish he would be more clear and answer the dubia. Pope Francis has challenged me to think much more about my faith and I am open to the possibility that I am not always right. Pope Francis has pushed the boundaries of mercy to the absolute maximum and this has been so intellectually unsettling for many in the church including myself.
I fail to see how Cardinal Burke could be considered to be acting against the unity of the Church. He was very subtle and proper in his questioning of what have been very dubious papal decisions. Could Pope Francis not have a look at himself and the divisions that he himself is causing within the Church? For evidence, one need go no further than this thread!
Telling seminarians to grant absolution even to those who are adamantly refusing to repent seems to go beyond any 'absolute maximum'. I think it justified to be unsettled.
I see where you are coming from - but here he seems to suggest that one needs a repentant heart. And I think this is from a speech to 400 priests. Pope Francis “Forgiveness is a ‘right’ in the sense that God, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, has given it in a total and irreversible way to every person willing to accept it, with a humble and repentant heart.” https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/...-internal-forum-penitentiary-forgiveness.html
Yes, he spoke about the existence of hell in 2014, but the interview with Scalfari was in 2018, just as he had already denied the possibility of women deaconesses a few times, but he allowed the subject to be discussed at the synod.
