A little Chesterton would be good here. “The Catholic Church has gone to the dogs at least three times in history and each time it’s the dog who died.” We may not be here to see the Triumph but it will come.
You mean that if he mentions the Resurrection at Easter we should hold our breath for fear he casts doubt on it by Pentecost?
This is probably cowardly but I just don’t follow his statements any more. I pray for him but I don’t want to get angry or dismayed or have false hopes. So it’s best that I just don’t “go there” and read his latest remarks etc.
Modernists and ambiguity Modernists have a great distaste for clarity and so they often make use of orthodox Catholic terminology to distort the truth of things and to bolster their cause of deception in which it seems at times they have even deceived the greatest of intellectuals and the most devout of Catholics. It would thus be wrong to imagine that everything in the writing of the Modernists was unorthodox. Much of what they often write often sounds perfectly sound, with much ambiguity. A statement like "Our faith is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” could mean His physical (Historical) Resurrection as the Church teaches, or simply a symbolic story which was invented by the first Christians to promote faith in Christ who rose only in the mind of his believers. For this reason Pope Pius X warned " In their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully" - Pascendi Although I have previously asserted that this Heresy of Modernism has gained a footing in the Catholic Church, I do not affirm on this account that they (the Modernist hierarchy) have made a clear list of propositions that they have explicitly affirmed. Modernism does not operate in this way; it's technique is infiltration "without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner" wrote Pope Pius X (Pascendi). On this same score Fr. Amerio Romano in his book “Iota Unum”, points out the various changes in the language used by the Modernist (Neo-Modernist) theologians since the second Vatican Council which had opened the door to the modernist revolution in the Church. A modernist will often recite the articles of the Creed using the same words as the Church prescribes but interprets them with his own lights or according to the current progressive understanding thus giving a new meaning the ancient terms.
This is what I am referring to. A lot has changed since this speech he gave at the end of the synod families. PF has an agenda, the St Gallen's agenda. - One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals. - The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.” - The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46). - The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God. - The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things… Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment. Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48). And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem. The is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord. Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners. And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro(with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all. We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them. His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God's People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it... that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).” So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can. 749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Cann. 331-334). D
Thanks Sunburst! If anyone is confused by the word usage or operating methods of those in power now, one must read the writings against Modernism by Pope St. Pius X. Confusing word usage is actually a technique they use purposely. It can confuse intent and allow for ambiguity later. Popes used to write clearly. This was because they were trying to clearly teach the flock, often in simple and easy to understand terms. Today we get a mix of confusion, obfuscation and sometimes just plain nonsensical statements. "Henceforth the enemy of the Church is no longer outside the Church; he is now within." -Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Esupremi Apostolatus “Time is greater than space.” -Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia
picadillo, I think you are correct, there has been a big change. I don't know enough about these things but does the Prefect of the CDF help write these things? If this is the case, then Cardinal Mueller may have written this letter or at a minimum he may have reviewed it and I don't believe that he has the same intentions as it appears Pope Francis has. ref. https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc..._20141018_conclusione-sinodo-dei-vescovi.html _______________________ Pope Francis: Vatican press chief resigns over doctored letter http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43471560 3/21/18 Image copyright Vatican Media Image caption The Vatican has not said why it blurred part of the letter by Pope emeritus Benedict XVI The head of the Vatican communications department has resigned after coming under fire for doctoring a letter sent by retired Pope Benedict XVI. A brief Vatican statement said Pope Francis had "accepted" the resignation of Msgr. Dario Vigano. It comes after the Vatican admitted blurring part of a letter about Pope Francis written by his predecessor, in a picture sent to the media. The tampering caused controversy amid concern over so-called "fake news". Professional standards of photojournalism forbid adding or removing anything from photographs, especially manipulations that alter their meaning. Media outlets covering the Pope often rely on handout images from the Vatican. Pope likens 'fake news' to Bible's serpent Pope Francis to visit Ireland in August Pope's investigator meets Chile victims The row began after Msgr. Vigano, whose official title was prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for Communication, asked Pope Benedict XVI to write some "dense theology" to be read at a presentation event for a new series of books about Pope Francis. In his letter, Pope Benedict welcomed the publication of the volumes, but said he would not be able to write a reflection because he would not have time to read them. Msgr. Vigano read selected passages from the letter at a presentation on 12 March. Then journalists received a doctored image of the letter, which blurred out the lines where Pope Benedict explained he would not be reading the books. In his letter of resignation (in Italian), Msgr. Vigano told Pope Francis that although it was not intentional, his actions had "destabilised the complex and great work of reform". "I think that for me stepping aside would be a fruitful occasion for renewal," he said. The Vatican press office has not explained why the picture of the letter was doctored. It told the Associated Press that it was never intended for full publication. Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption The Vatican said it had not planned to publish the letter in full Though Pope Benedict is often characterised as a more hardline, doctrinaire pontiff than Francis, he has spoken warmly of his successor and his "goodness". For his part, Francis has praised Benedict's decision to resign from the papacy in 2013 as "courageous". "I think that a Pope emeritus should not be an exception," he told reporters in August 2014. "You can ask me: 'What if one day you don't feel prepared to go on?' I would do the same, I would do the same!"
https://www.castanet.net/news/World/221633/Vatican-media-chief-resigns Vatican media chief resigns over doctored letter.
Heidi, And so we should go back to the quote of the day from HeavenltHosts, "Space can also be in your head between your ears" . OR which they haven't figured out yet. I wonder if it is a promotion. Heidi is correct, I never doubted her btw.... Pope Francis accepts resignation of Vatican communications head after Benedict letter controversy Gerard O’Connell March 21, 2018 https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...can-communications-head-after-benedict-letter Msgr. Dario Vigano, then-prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for Communication, is pictured at a news conference at the Vatican in this Feb. 8 file photo. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Msgr. Dario Vigano, prefect of the Secretariat for Communications, following a weeklong controversy in which the secretariat was accused of misrepresenting a letter sent by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI to the Vatican monsignor. The Vatican broke the news of the resignation today when it published two letters. The first was from Msgr. Vigano to the pope on March 19, which addressed the controversy and offered his resignation. The second was Francis’ reply dated today, March 21. RELATED STORIES Following controversy, Vatican publishes full text of Benedict XVI’s letter Gerard O’Connell Vatican doctors photo of Benedict’s praise for Francis Nicole Winfield - Associated Press Pope Francis wrote: “following our last meetings and after reflecting at length and attentively weighing the motivations behind your request to ‘take a step back’ from the direct responsibility for the Dicastery for Communications, I respect your decision and accept, though not without some pain, your resignation.” It was well known in the Vatican that Msgr. Vigano was close to the pope. In a sign of esteem for Msgr. Vigano, Francis took the highly unusual action of asking him to continue working in the secretariat and assigned him a new role within that structure. He appointed him as “assessor” in the secretariat “so as to be able to give your human and professional contribution to the new prefect and to the project of reform which the Council of Cardinals wanted, and which was approved and regularly shared by me.” In other words, Pope Francis made clear that the reform that has been carried out so far under Msgr. Vigano, which he said is now in “its conclusive phase,” was fully supported by him all along. He noted that the final phase involves “the fusion” of the Vatican daily newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, and the Vatican’s printing press into the secretariat. "Msgr. Vigano told the pope he was resigning “in order not to delay in some way, damage or even block” reform of the communications office." Tweet this Francis concluded the letter by thanking him “for the humility and profound sense of the church (sensus ecclesiae)” that he has shown in offering his resignation, imparting his blessing to him and entrusting him “to Mary.” In his letter of resignation, Msgr. Vigano told Pope Francis that “many polemics” had surrounded his work in recent days, referring to the mishandling of Benedict’s letter, which he said “destabilized the complex and great work of reform" with which the pontiff had entrusted him in June 2015. Msgr. Vigano told the pope that “in order not to delay in some way, damage or even block” this reform, he offered his resignation. He wrote, "I think that for me stepping aside would be a fruitful occasion for renewal." The resignation is seen an as honorable step by Msgr. Vigano following his disastrous management of Benedict’s XVI’s letter, which has caused questioning of the pope’s reform of Vatican communications.
This idea that this was not intentional is in itself preposterous, playing on our charity to protect whoever is above this man and in league with this charade of unity is as bad as the original deceit if not worse.
Don, It is preposterous and I can't help but wonder if the Vatican's communications department was trying to detract attention from the letter that Pope Benedict wrote to Cardinal Müller on January 2, 2018 which is posted above. Obviously, it didn't work out so well. From Pope Benedict's letter to Cardinal Müller, In the confused times in which we are living, the whole scientific theological competence and wisdom of he who must make the final decisions seem to me of vital importance. For example, I think that things might have gone differently in the Liturgical Reform if the words of the experts had not been the last ones, but if, apart from them, a wisdom capable of recognizing the limits of a “simple” scholar’s approach had passed judgment. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/01/for-record-benedict-xvis-letter-to.html
Exactly Carol, it is the democratization of the Church by committee and the further eroding of the authority (the buck stops here!) of the Pope to put an end to this madness and offense against God and His Church. This also lends itself toward duplicitous language and ultimately rationalizing away things such as this false ecumenicism we see every Pontificate since Vatican II taking part of in some form. Praetorian touched on this principle above with his example of obfuscation and confusing speech used by Pope Francis. This false ecumenicism was promoted and defended by many Bishops even at the very Chapel built in Fatima where Our Lady appeared there to the children. Violating the Dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church. http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/0704desec.asp John Salza (A former high level Mason) speaks about this as well in a video presentation he did showing how Freemasonry has worked its way into the Church, leveled the playing ground via the embrace of naturalism and is leveling the playing field of all world religions to reign triumphant over them all. Salsa, also brings up a very important point regarding Vatican II and the third secret of Fatima in relation to Pope John XXIII statement of it not relating to his pontificate. That Our Holy Mother by instructing Sr Lucia that the secret be revealed in 1960 very plainly points to Vatican II. God have Mercy on us.
Padraig, you are obviously concerned on this thread that the Smoke of Satan may have entered the Vatican. With the many questionable messages being promoted here, when a certain forum member warns another member/ members to basically " shut up or face the wrath of God", when confronted by legitimate concerns, should you not be concerned that the Smoke of Satan may have entered your own forum?
MonicaHope, If I may. I think that Padraig made some very good points about the studying of apparitions on the "Prophesy" thread. Mainly, there is a lot we don't have answers to right away and some times for years and years as you probably know. If the Church makes a negative ruling on a particular apparition that is a different story imho and sometimes members do post about apparitions that have a negative ruling unknowingly. Recently I was having a discussion about Vassula Ryden, I am pretty certain that the Church has not ruled negatively on her because she is not a Catholic, in addition, she has stated she is not receiving Divine messages but they are her private meditations. Personally, I don't want to spend my time on some thing like this when I believe that there are so many other ways for me to spend my time, such as praying the Rosary for example but others are free to feel differently than I do. For the most part, there is a certain etiquette on the forum and there are designated threads for unapproved (and approved) prophecies which I think is very helpful. That does not mean that you won't see these things discussed on other threads but not to the degree where the discussion is focused on the particular apparition as it would be on a thread designated as such. If this does happen, some times someone will suggest a new thread be created or that the conversation go back on topic, etc. In addition, you can private message the member posting and discuss your concerns and you can even click on the "Report" button if you are seriously concerned about the contents of a particular post. I also believe that we are better off discussing these things then banning them. I think it helps everyone to have a cordial debate about these topics. I believe that this is Padraig's opinion also and he can correct me if I am wrong. Imho, Padraig and the other administrators here do a terrific job in maintaining "peace" on the site. We are discussing topics that are very sensitive and things can get heated at times. Padraig has without a doubt demonstrated his ability to maintain a beautiful community here in the name of Our Lady, imho.
Hi Monica, I am probably pretty close to where you fall on some of the unapproved apparitions that are floating around in the world today. I think many of them are not from God. That being said it is a fairly open forum and as Carol said Padraig and the other moderators here do a pretty good job at directing it and keeping people in good order while not stifling them. No forum will be perfect, but I think this one is about as close as we are going to get to one that spreads the truth in this age of darkness. Are there problems? Has the devil played havoc with us here from time to time? Certainly, but the devil is everywhere today. If he can make it into the highest echelons of the Vatican he can penetrate this little corner of the web. It is probably sort of a balancing act running a forum. The more free it is then the more "exciting" and the more aggressive debate will be. The downside to that is that it allows more error to be spread as well. So I think Padraig and the moderators do their best to eliminate the error as much as possible while allowing quite free discussion. Even though I fall into your camp on a lot of this, I can definitely appreciate the other side of the argument. It is one of the reasons that I do not run a forum. I would come down too hard on people about discussing things or expressing opinions that I felt crossed the line and that would be just about everyone here at some point, myself included. A forum run by me would resemble Ernie talking to Bert and nobody wants to read that
