"RORATE" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

I say Deaconnettes, you say Deaconesses, Don't expect that they'll call the whole thing off!


Father Z is reporting on the founding of the commission to study "Deaconettes."  He writes two posts, first on the new commission, and then on losing ones souls for something less than even Wales, (no offense to the Welsh).

I note that Phyllis Zagano is on the commission. 

Surprise.

Zagano was in Toronto a few months ago speaking at St. Michael's College on this very subject. A few days later, Francis of Rome mused about the idea, it just popped into his head. The College is a Basilian institution.

I note that one of the panelists was Rev. Brian Clough. I attended his first Mass, oh maybe around 1967 or so. My dad was his family's barber. He was an up-and-comer to be sure and highly regarded. He went on to become seminary rector and was then sent away for more education. He returned decades ago and is still the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. I wonder what Father Clough's position is on deaconettes?

A few weeks ago, Zagano provided a screed to the NonCatholicReporter defending the claims by a certain Basilian priest that bloggers are full of vitriol and hate.

The Novus Ordo liturgy is a bastard rite. It is lead by a bastard theology and a bastard church.

Don't believe it will happen?

Well, friends. Francis has "full, immediate and universal jurisdiction." He is a Peronist and a Marxist. He refused to kneel before God in the Eucharist but grovels before man.

Don't think he'll do it?

The world is burning from a lack of faith in Christ and this Pope thinks we should have deaconettes.

Rorate reports that the sodomite pervert from Belgium, Roger Vangheluwe and protected friend of Godfried Danneels who led the campaign to place this Peronist, Bergoglio, in the Seat of Peter, authored a book on the subject of deaconettes. 

You remember Vangheluwe, right? He was the one that raped his own nephew, buggered him and then the pervert protector Daneels, the one who led the Gallen Mafia to elect Bergoglio told the nephew to back off.

Bergoglio has removed the bishops of Kansas City and Minneapolis, one in Italy as I recall, another in Central America and maybe more for not properly dealing with cases of abuse. Fine. I accept that they made mistakes. What I cannot accept is that the same vigour is not applied equally to those bishops and cardinals who have done the same or more and yet, not only survive, but prosper under this sham of a papacy.

One more thing.

Remember that the St. Gallen Mafia wanted Francis to “speed things up.” As I reported previously on Uncle Teddy McCarrick’s video presentation at Villanova University where he reflected on being lobbied by a “very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome,” who said to him, “If we gave him five years, he could put us back on target.” He then instructed Uncle Teddy to “talk him up.”

Remember, it was Archbishop Fernandez, a man elevated by Bergoglio and the author of the art of kissing who said, “If one day he should intuit that he’s (Francis) running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

Hmmm, “he doesn’t have enough time” and “you can be sure he will speed up.”

So, it seems that Bergoglio knows his time is short.

So does someone else.

Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. Apoc. 12.12

It is all coming together friends; and it is going to fall down around all of them.



Parce Domine, Parce populo tuo. Ne in aeternum, irascaris nobis. 

45 comments:

philipjohnson said...

Oh i hope so Vox! Bergoglio is heading for a downfall which will be very great-the sooner the better for the Rampant Heretic.

susan said...

" So, it seems that Bergoglio knows his time is short. So does someone else."

Daniel?....

"As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings.
He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law;
And they shall be given over to his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.
But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end...."

if jorge isn't the eschatological fulfillment of this, I'll be mightily surprised. If he keels over in September (or thereabouts...3 1/2 years since his ascension to squatting on Peter's throne)), get very, very serious about the state of your soul...all of this will have been only the warm-up, and things will get very interesting indeed. September. I've been counting on it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, you are excelling yourself! FANTASTICALLY well said!

Ana Milan said...

They all need putting away forever. It's hard to see who could be the man to restore the CC to the glory it once held, unless he comes from a lower tier of Church governance. If most of the Hierarchy were taken with PF that could happen, but not otherwise. Prophesy has spoken of one who will surprise, but that could certainly refer to PF who more than surprised but not in a way befitting a successor of St. Peter. Our Lady has spoken of her intervention followed by Her Triumph which would presumably precede the Apocalypse. We all need to hold our breath as the months ahead unfold. Something really big is surely about to occur. The Lund Commemorations of the Protestant Revolt, the suggestion of canonising Luther, the introduction of a NWO religion - it cannot get much darker. The CC is in Apostasy & so is the world. Without the Holy Mass & Sacraments we are left bereft, with the exception of the Holy Rosary. This is surely our lifeline. Our Lady of Fatima come to our aid!

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, I just read the two articles on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog. The articles don't express any fear that His Holiness Pope Francis will admit women to the diaconate.

Father Zuhlsdorf is familiar with several members of the commission who will study the question about women deacons. Father identified the members I question as being in favor of Tradition.

Father Zuhlsdorf's upbeat prediction on the issue of women deacons:

"The question will eventually be resolved (frankly, it probably is already) wholly on the basis what it means to be ordained TODAY, not centuries ago. What do Holy Orders mean NOW. That’s the key. Inevitably our present understanding of Holy Orders will trump history, philology, etc. I suspect that this move will forever bury the question, and properly so."

The other article was written by the Father Regis Scanlon, OFM CAP. Father Scanlon downplayed the notion that we should be fearful of the commission. Father Scanlon said that commission reflects merely Pope Francis' penchant to "open up topics for discussion without any intention of changing Church teaching, we have to believe that is what he is doing here."

To sum up the two articles...no big deal about the commission. Do not expect women deacons to populate the True Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

"Full, immediate and universal jurisdiction."

But you're right Mark, not in the "True Church."

susan said...

"...th(e) commission reflects merely Pope Francis' penchant to "open up topics for discussion without any intention of changing Church teaching, we have to believe that is what he is doing here."

Yeah Mark Thomas...exactly; cause we have his past behavior to judge by, like the synod on adultery, er, the family, and it's fabulous fruit, "The Joy of Sodomy", er, "aroris leatitia". That's right, no intention to change Church teaching....no intention at all....go back to sleep now.

Peter Lamb said...

What is Heresy?

“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

What must we believe?

“By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)

Who does not believe all those things taught by the Magisterium of the Church?

“Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic.”(C. 1325)

Can a heretic be a valid Pope of the Roman Catholic Church?

No. The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other theologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: “If however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” -- St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.

Mark Thomas said...

susan said..."Yeah Mark Thomas...exactly; cause we have his past behavior to judge by, like the synod on adultery, er, the family, and it's fabulous fruit, "The Joy of Sodomy", er, "aroris leatitia"."

Susan, His Holiness Pope Francis and the Polish bishops a few days ago discussed various matters during their "very warm" meeting. Following that meeting, the Polish bishops said that among the matters discussed was Amoris Laetitia."

The Polish bishops then announced that (unrepentant) divorced and remarried Catholics could not receive Holy Communion.

Archbishop Gadecki, president of the Polish Bishops Conference, declared that Amoris Laetitia reflected the Polish bishops' "more conservative proposal" during the synod which was to “retain the truth of the Gospel” when relating to admission to the sacraments of remarried divorcees. “We cannot deliberately overstep Christ’s precept against divorce,” he said.

The President of the Polish Bishops Conference declared that Amoris Laetitia is in line with that which the Bishops of Poland have taught in regard to their refusal to permit (unrepentant) remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion.

Amoris Laetitia reflects the teachings of the Polish bishops, which, in turn, are, of course, Holy Mother Church's teachings.

Pax.

Mark Thomas


Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."

— Bishop Athanasius Schneider

susan said...

footnote 351....the Germans will use it to overtly/publicly do what they've been doing in the dark for a loooong time, with fancis' blessing and backing.

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/heresy-in-amoris-laetitia-footnote-351/

loaded, absolutely LOADED with heresy....

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/heresy-in-amoris-laetitia-291-295-297/
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/heresy-in-amoris-laetitia-305-part-ii-306/
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/heresy-in-amoris-laetitia-305-part-i/
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/heresy-in-amoris-laetita-304/
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/heresy-in-amoris-laetitia-302-303/
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/heresy-in-amoris-laetitia-301/

I used to think you were well-meaning, but just deluded. I no longer think that. I think even rosica would be leery of saying some of the things that you do.



Johnno said...

It's amazing that Mark Thomas still comes around playing the laughable PR card the Polish Bishops play and lying through his smiling teeth about the situation.

Amoris Letitia is HERESY that declares that God's law is too tough and people cannot follow it or understand it and gives conscience the possibility of annulling God's law by declaring that they therefore should be excused by a stretch of the imagination to consider their thought-processes less developed than infants and offering them a strained leniency.

We all know Amoris Laetitia's sleight of hand. As Schneider says, nowhere does Amoris explicitly say the divorced and remarried can receive communion. This is true! But here's the problem! Amoris does however explicitly give free reign for pastors to act on their own and that the Vatican will just blissfully trust them to be 'pastoral' and ignore them if through some mysterious means they determine that the divorced and remarried get a wink*wink and receive communion.

Basically any pastor just has to strain hard enough and evaluate that perhaps these people don't know what they're doing, making it impossible for them to obey God or understand their situation and therefore can be declared 'innocent' and acceptable to receive the sacrament without ever amending their lifestyle, which apparently, according to Amoris Letitia *could be* something they never understood then and cannot understand now!

This from the same Pope who told a woman married to a divorcee and a Lutheran to ask their consciences and decide for themselves if they should receive communion. In the case of the woman, that she should ignore her priest!

If Mark Thomas were working for the FBI, he'd probably also be declaring that Hillary Clinton is innocent because she didn't *really* understand what she was doing about her e-mails, despite that she'd been doing it for her entire political career, and therefore, like the divorced and remarried, which Amoris Letitia also entertains suffer from Hillary Clinton syndrome, ought to be free of guilt and allowed to carry on!

But I guess the Polish Bishops, like many in the Democrat Party and the mainstream media who also might not be all for Clinton, don't think anything was wrong... therefore, everything is good! Right?

WRONG!

Johnno said...

There is no legalese or PR statement that the Polish Bishops can cook up for the sake of maintaining the appearances that can cover up the Clinton-Minded hypothesis of Amoris Letitia!

Mark Thomas is setting up a straw man - Amoris Letitia doesn't explicitly say 'give communion to divorced/remarried.'

What Mark Thomas won't tackle is - Amoris Letitia promotes situation ethics and private individual consciences above God's Law. And strongly hints that Pastors jump through mental hoops to exercise the 'insanity defence' of the guilty party in order to absolve them of sin and therefore separating their objective lifestyle from their mental comprehension of facts, declare that due to this mental disability they cannot be found to be objectively guilty of sin and therefore argue that there is no obstacle for them to receive Communion without amending their objective state, which apparently they cannot and will never fully understand in order for there to be an objective state of sin.

Thus the genius of Amoris Letitia's MODERNISM is that Pope Francis has found a means whereby he can appeal to the requirement that he who sins must be 'knowledgeable' that what he is doing is a sin in order to formally sin. If their knowledge of the sin or the requirements of marriage is found to be 'inadequate' as Hilary Clinton's understanding that she should not send classified government information over unencrypted sources outside of official channels, then therefore, the remarried/divorced should be found innocent, all charges dropped and therefore only then can they be allowed to receive communion under such FBI-like pastoral care.

Only a gullible fool can fall for what's in Amoris Letitia and consider it the teaching of Holy Mother Church!

Matthew said...

Johnno, I wholeheartedly agree.

Patrick said...

I read this: The other article was written by the Father Regis Scanlon, OFM CAP. Father Scanlon downplayed the notion that we should be fearful of the commission. Father Scanlon said that commission reflects merely Pope Francis' penchant to "open up topics for discussion without any intention of changing Church teaching, we have to believe that is what he is doing here."

Well, why would the Pope deliberately stir the pot in bringing up for serious discussion what he definitely won't change? I would say that is stupid, giving some people false hopes and discouraging others. And how does Fr. Scanlon know that the Pope has no intention of introducing deaconesses (or deaconettes, or deaconelles, or deaconitas, etc.)?

I hate to criticize Fr. Regis, because I have known him for almost twenty years and love him. A very fine priest, one of the best I have ever met. But he is kidding himself here.

Kathleen1031 said...

Stop mincing words. Tell us what you really think. ;)
Thank God for this blog.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."As Schneider says, nowhere does Amoris explicitly say the divorced and remarried can receive communion. This is true!"

Great. As Amoris Laetitia does not anywhere declare that unrepentant remarried divorcees are free to receive Holy Communion, then as Bishop Schneider declared:

Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases."

Therefore, anybody who would use Amoris Laetitia otherwise is dishonest and unorthodox (or is deficient, horrifically so, in his/her understanding of AL).

The only possible Catholic understanding of AL must be rendered in light of Holy Tradition. Case closed...for as Bishop Schneider noted, Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases."

Pax.

Mark Thomas


Amoris Laetitia is in line with the refusal of the Church in Poland to admit (unrepentant) remarried divorcees to Holy Communion, according to Poland's Catholic bishops.

Amoris Laetitia reflects the Polish bishops' "more conservative proposal" during the synod which was to “retain the truth of the Gospel” when relating to admission to the sacraments of remarried divorcees. “We cannot deliberately overstep Christ’s precept against divorce.”

— Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, president of the Polish Bishops Conference.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas -

What you don't tackle is that Amoris Letitia, according to Pope Francis speaking through Shonborn, his hand picked final interpreter of Amoris is the opposite - that Tradition must be read through Amoris Letitia, not the other way around. And according to Francis speaking through Shonborn is binding, over and against that of Burke and Schneider.So Pope Francis has through Schonborn already refuted your hypothesis and prefers that you do not read Amoris in light of what the Church has always taught, something for which Pope Francis is always inviting us to break free of so as to reach new pastoral solutions, but that you need to interpret Tradition through the novelty of Amoris.

"All previous magisterial statements concerning marriage and the family now have to be read in the light of Amoris Laetitia, Schönborn stressed, and just as today the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) must be interpreted in the light of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)." - Kath.net
From 'Cardinal Schönborn Says Amoris Laetitia is Binding Doctrine' - 1P5

So for Pope Francis, it is the other way around in direct contradiction to what the Church has always taught and what you stated.

And as I said, Amoris Letitia doesn't defaultly say you need to give Communion to unrepentant sinners. It allows, as Francis wished from the Synod exercise, to be vague enough that he can draw from it any conclusion one liked. So the Polish Bishops can read out of it orthodoxy in line with Tradition, because of the circumstances of their culture. While the Germans can read out of it heterodoxy in line with Modernism, because of the circumstances of their culture.

As other bishops, including some whom you've quoted, have taken pains to point out that this vague-ness allows sin to exist in one country, but not in another, depending on whatever the individual Bishops conferences decide or whatever individual pastors decide for their adulterous couples.

Thus Amoris Letitia is poisoned. Is deliberate heresy by elevating conscience about God's Law which it declares impossible to follow for some. And opens up all new cans of worms for if exceptions can be made for the adulterers, then why not the homosexuals and all other forms of sin too? Don't all those people also suffer under similar circumstances that make life too hard to change for cultural or personal reasons?

susan said...

And the German bishops are using the absolute opposite argument, and francis couldn't give a rat's patoot what an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan has to say. Try reading what C's Mark, Kasper, Shonborn, and others of the cabal have to say. And who's 'interpretation' do you think francis will go along with? AL's openings are big enough to drive a semi thru, therein lies the BIG problem Mark Thomas.

You conveniently fail to mention that Bp. Schneider called for, in very clear and bracing words, a clarification of the document that, "...has unfortunately, within a very short time, led to very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate."

And, "This opinion was further confirmed by the recent declarations of Father Antonio Spadaro S.J., after the Synod of Bishops in 2015, that the Synod had established the “foundations” for the access of divorced and remarried couples to communion by “opening a door” that had still been closed during the previous Synod in 2014. Now, as Father Spadaro alleges in his commentary on AL, his prediction has been confirmed. There are rumours that Father Spadaro was a member of the editorial group behind AL."

And a whole lot more here: http://voiceofthefamily.com/official-english-translation-of-bishop-schneiders-reflection-on-amoris-laetitia/

Schneider is positively scathing on AL, and the danger to the Faith it presents, and to present his view as anything other than that is disingenuous at best.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."Only a gullible fool can fall for what's in Amoris Letitia and consider it the teaching of Holy Mother Church!

Johnno, here are just a few of many, many men of God who have declared that Amoris Laetitia does not admit unrepentant remarried divorcees to Holy Communion.

Johnno, I don't believe that the following holy men are liars or gullible fools:

-- Robert Cardinal Sarah: "In his post-synodal Exhortation on the Family, Amoris Lætitia (“The Joy of Love”), Pope Francis states clearly: “In no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur … proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being.”

"This is why the Holy Father openly and vigorously defends Church teaching on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, the education of children and much more."

-- Cardinal Müller

-- Cardinal Burke

-- Archbishop Chaput.

-- The bishops of Poland.

-- The bishops of Costa Rica.

-- Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

-- Archbishop Jose Gomez (Los Angeles, California).

-- Bishop Philip Egan (Portsmouth, England).

-- Pope Francis: No Communion for Divorced and Remarried. February 17, 2016 A.D

"Being integrated into the Church does not mean “taking communion”. I know remarried Catholics who go to Church once or twice a year: “I want to receive communion!”, as if communion were a commendation. It is a matter of integration... the doors are all open.

"*******But one cannot just say: from now on “they can take communion”.*******

"This would also wound the spouses, the couple, because it won’t help them on the path to integration.

"These two were happy! They used a really lovely expression: “We do not take eucharistic communion, but we do find communion by visiting people in the hospital, in this or that service...”. Their integration is there. If there is something more, the Lord will tell them, but ... it is a journey, it is a path...."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Quotes and counter quotes from AL could go ad infinitum. This is not by mistake - it's intentional. Classic modernist double speak!:

"This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus 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."
(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 18.)

[This behavior] "cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
… [The heretic Nestorius] expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed."

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei.)

Peter Lamb said...

“In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.... [This] cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.” —Pope Pius VI,Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei (1794)

“Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.” —Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique (1910)

“Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.” —Pope St. Pius X,Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), n. 3

Anonymous said...

@Mark Thomas

I always imagine how much good people like you could do for God if you spent as much energy on charity as you do on trying to excuse heresy.

Anonymous said...

The Commission will study Tradition and theology for this change, of course,
theology may be shaped into an argument for almost anything, when it is
bad theology.

I am 99.9% certain the Commission will recommend approval of ordained
Deaconesses.

The makeup of the group consists of an equal number of men and women, six each, presided over by a Monsignor, who will likely go with the majority view (how democratic), and then Jorge Bergoglio will instruct the Canon lawyers to rewrite 1,989 years of Church Tradition (starting at Our Lord's ministry).

As the Modernist, Freemason Occupied Vatican morphs into full-blown Universalism, a great Schism is approaching.
We may very well see a situation in our lifetimes where contending pontiffs have different seats,
with millions of traditional Catholics formally recognizing a
Pope other than the Novus Ordo pontiff (if it will even be a man,
that shoe will eventually drop also).

I, for one, am glad that our chances of having a real Pope again are increasing.
Whether that Pope sits in the Vatican or not is of lesser consequence than his validity.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas -

Your last resort to the credibility of the men you list holds about as much weight as resorting to the Conciliar Popes John Paul II & Benedict XVI in order to excuse the actions of Pope Francis, which you embarassingly did in another thread in defense of Francis making excuses for Islam.

Once again you ignore the fact that all those men contradict themselves given that they attempt to simultaneously maintain on one hand that Amoris Letitia is 'orthodox' while with the other hand pleading with the Pope to clarify statements that are clearly heretical. But all of them stop short of explicitly saying that - NOT because they are gullible - but because they are AFRAID of him - and they know that a lot of Catholics in the happy Novus Ordo land are in fact very gullible, like you!

Mueller, Burke, Chaput, the Poles etc. are all Men of the Vatican II Council first, faithful to Tradition second. In particular the Poles who are the upholders of the cult of John Paul II above all else. They are also trained in a newspeak of corporate PR to treat the Institution Christ established as akin to a business organization whenever it comes to covering up scandal and denying everything until the day everything falls apart. In particular when comes to accusing the Pope of heresy and treason against Christ.

You attempt to use someone like Burke to uphold the 'orthodoxy' of a document he himself dismisses as being unimportant and not part of the deposit of faith and having no magisterial authority, while Shonborn, the Mouth of Francis, declares otherwise. So who are you going to choose to listen to? Burke? Or Francis?

Much the same for Mueller, who dodges the difficult questions while repeating the mantra that Amoris Letitia is fine from one side of his mouth, while downplaying it with the other. Watching any of these men speak is like watching the White House Press Conferences trying to excuse the stupidity and downright criminal actions of the government; usually by deflecting the blame back on the reporters for daring to ask such incredulous questions.

And once again you ignore the modernist aspect of Pope Francis, who you quote on one hand saying "They cannot take Holy Communion" while precisely contradicting this upon his own private judgment in phone calls to adulterous women and even Lutherans right in front of Mueller's face, who is set to be replaced very soon. Much like Burke was cast away and as will anybody else who dares to stand up to his villainy. Which is why you can expect to hear lots of placation and ass-kissing statements from bishops from Poland to Costa Rica, who will insist on upholding the correct law, while simultaneously paying lip service to Pope Francis and Amoris Letitia. Because to do otherwise and to state the truth openly would mean that it would become incumbent on them to take action and put a public stand against the Pope and throw the Church into an open crisis that requires the Pope to be investigated by a Council for heresy. And all these V-II peace-men don't have the cajoles to do it.

Face it. The very fact that all these bishops need to put out statements insisting that Pope Francis and Amoris Letitia is fine and good is itself a big red flag about the situation considering we have to be reminded that the Pope and the things he writes and says are Catholic. Yet none of them address the questions and evidence on display that Amoris Letitia openly contradicts Perennial Church Teaching, and openly seeks to undermine the discipline surrounding the Blessed Sacrament and its reception.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."Your last resort to the credibility of the men you list holds about as much weight as resorting to the Conciliar Popes John Paul II & Benedict XVI in order to excuse the actions of Pope Francis, which you embarassingly did in another thread in defense of Francis making excuses for Islam."

"Embarassingly." Huh? Okay. Sure. Anyway...I pointed out simply that His Holiness Pope Francis' approach to Islam is 100 percent in line with Popes Benedict XVI, Saint John Paul II, Blessed Paul VI.

As I have also noted many times, whether that prudential policy has benefitted the Church is a different matter. I don't believe that that approach has benefitted the Church. However, the Popes in question, as well as many bishops, believe(d) otherwise.

The bottom line is that I don't believe that the Papal policy in question is sound. However, the Pope disagrees. Therefore, as I'm a nobody and Pope Francis governs the Church as he wields monumental power and authority, his approach to Islam, not mine, carries the day throughout the Church.

Oh, I'm so "embarrassed" by my comments.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."Mueller, Burke, Chaput, the Poles etc. are all Men of the Vatican II."

Of course they are. They are Catholic.

The same One True Church that gave us Vatican II, gave us Vatican I, the Council of Trent...Council of Jerusalem.

If the above holy Catholic Cardinals/Bishops weren't men of Vatican II, the True Church's 21st Ecumenical Council, then they would be schismatics.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas -

Yes Mark, you should be embarrassed by your comments. You attempted to diminish the actions of Pope Francis by appealing to the actions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI which were just as erroneous. You did it in order to deflect blame from him as if somehow you expected people to lap it up because his predecessors did it and that somehoe this was some good continuity. You refer to this blatant violation of the First Commandment by Christ's Vicar as 'prudential policy.' And you're 100% serious. The most we can elicit from you is that you feel it's 'unsound.' Really!

And one hardly knows where to begin with your uncritical wholesale acceptance of the non-dogmatic supposedly non-binding only pastoral Vatican II Council which contains errors with regards to religious freedom, other religions and numerous other things that stand in direct contradiction to the INFALLIBLE BINDING Declarations of Councils and popes before it.

As even Paul VI declared, Vatican II is nothing more than, as you say, 'prudential policy' with regards to approaching the modern world and other religions and most notably Communism for which the Church decided to keep very mum about.

So any 'men of Vatican II,' who are used to 'accepting' the council and avoiding clarifying its errors and ambiguities, or admit to them as even Pope Benedict XVI himself openly did and criticized, are more inclined to likewise speak nicely about Amoris Letitia and follow the same policy towards it, in spite of its problems just as they do Vatican II.

Johnno said...

Perhaps Mark Thomas would like to quote for us Benedict XVI's criticisms of Vatican II?

"Pope Benedict concludes that one of the council's best-known documents, "Gaudium et Spes," the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, failed to offer an adequate definition of the "essential features that constitute the modern era."

...

The Declaration on Religious Liberty, "urgently requested, and also drafted, by the American bishops in particular," clarified the church's affirmation of the "freedom to choose and practice religion and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms," he writes.

That declaration lent itself to troubling interpretations, the pope writes, since it might seem to imply the "inaccessibility of the truth to man," which would make religion a merely subjective matter.

...

The pope also praises "Nostra Aetate," the council's declaration that the "spiritual, moral, and socio-cultural values (of non-Christian religions) were to be respected, protected and encouraged."

But the pope writes that a "weakness of this otherwise extraordinary text has gradually emerged: It speaks of religion solely in a positive way, and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion."

In conclusion, Pope Benedict reiterates one of his most prominent teachings about Vatican II: that it must be interpreted in continuity with the church's millennial traditions, not as a radical break with the past."

Pope Benedict recalls Vatican II with praise and criticism - CNS News

So funny how previous Councils don't suffer from this need to convince us repeatedly that Vatican II is A-OK, just as they are doing so with Amoris Letitia, when the post-VII actions, results and the words on paper adequately betray these errors, but instead of fixing them, we must strain them just hard enough with verbal sophistry so that they can be read with the 'hermenutic of continuity.' Thereby avoiding responsibility for putting them there like that in the first place.

Here's a better idea, how about just taking out the errors or re-writing them to be precise? Something so simple but never done. And these men wonder why there's so much confusion when they themselves are chiefly responsible by their actions and in-actions.

Certainly other councils also have additional commentary, but VII, for a council aimed at clarifying its mission to the common secular man, sure failed hard in that duty. Either the VII fathers and its defenders ought to suffer embarrassment, or it's the Holy Spirit. Given the Holy Spirit was never invoked for VII to teach anything infallible and was kept out along with the original discarded schemas, that only leaves one side to carry that embarrassment.

Guess which one you've identified with? Remember, the gay-mass outreaches openly flouting Church discipline and teachings are also 'Catholics' and love Vatican II. So your empty appeals to 'Catholicism' simply by empty association don't hold as much water as you think.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."And once again you ignore the modernist aspect of Pope Francis, who you quote on one hand saying "They cannot take Holy Communion" while precisely contradicting this upon his own private judgment in phone calls to adulterous women and even Lutherans right in front of Mueller's face, who is set to be replaced very soon."

1. Please prove that His Holiness Pope Francis, via "phone calls to adulterous women," authorized, contrary to his public declaration, that (unrepentant) remarried divorcees are free to receive Holy Communion. Do you have official Vatican recordings and/or transcriptions of the phone calls?

2. Please demonstrate where Pope Francis informed Lutherans that they are free (other than during an exceptional circumstance in accord with Church teachings) to receive Holy Communion?

Your information is contrary to mine. In fact, a Lutheran woman asked Pope Francis:

"My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I'm married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord's Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?"

Pope Francis replied that "I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence."

Pope Francis declared clearly that he "wouldn't" even dare to allow" such a thing.

Do you have information that he said otherwise to Lutherans? If so, please produced that information.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Johnno said...

Speak of the devil... It looks like the prepared texts to celebrate the Lutheran revolt are available! And oh boy is this a whole new ball-game! Downplaying (aka PUBLIC DENIAL) of the absolute truth of the Holy Eucharist! Or would that be 'prudential policy' when it comes to accommodating the Lutherans just as we do Islam?

Mark Thomas, I hope you are already preparing your defense of this upcoming travesty. You have plenty of time to prepare to tell us why the following statements to be read by either the Pope or someone under him in his presence are actually good things!

"The text paints a picture of Luther as a religious hero who found the way to a more true form of Catholicism, “The breakthrough for Catholic scholarship came with the thesis that Luther overcame within himself a Catholicism that was not fully Catholic.”

In both the Lutheran and Catholic “reading” part of the thanksgiving section, it is Luther and his works toward which thanksgiving is expressed.

First the Lutheran, “Lutherans are thankful in their hearts for what Luther and the other reformers made accessible to them”

and the Catholic reading is concluded with, “The ecumenical journey enables Lutherans and Catholics to appreciate together Martin Luther’s insight into and spiritual experience of the gospel of the righteousness of God, which is also God’s mercy.”

One of the two “presiders,” then concludes this section with the following prayer of gratitude for the reformation.

“Thanks be to you O God for the many guiding theological and spiritual insights that we have all received through the Reformation. Thanks be to you for the good transformations and reforms that were set in motion by the Reformation or by struggling with its challenges. Thanks be to you for the proclamation of the gospel that occurred during the Reformation and that since then has strengthened countless people to live lives of faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.”

This narrative comes to a critical point under the heading “Catholic Concerns regarding the Eucharist.”

As regards the notion transubstantiation the text says, “This concept seemed, in the Catholic view, to be the best guarantee for maintaining the real presence of Jesus Christ in the species of bread and wine and for assuring that the full reality of Jesus Christ is present in each of the species.”

To use the verb “seem” clearly indicates that this has not objective value for Catholics and that other notions could be used for the same purpose and perhaps even with better effect. "

Sweden and the 500 year reformation
A Catholic Perspective
Talk by Clemens Cavallin

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."You attempt to use someone like Burke to uphold the 'orthodoxy' of a document he himself dismisses as being unimportant and not part of the deposit of faith and having no magisterial authority."

1. You are correct in that Raymond Cardinal Burke declared the following: "Pope Francis makes clear, from the beginning, that the post-synodal apostolic exhortation is not an act of the magisterium."

2. You are wrong that Cardinal Burke "dismisses (Amoris Laetitia) as being unimportant. Contrary to your claim, Cardinal Burke presented Amoris Laetitia as the fruit of the very important work of the Synod of Bishops on the Family.

Cardinal Burke said that Amoris Laetitia must "be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman pontiff as the Vicar of Christ, in the words of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of both the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."

Amoris Laetitia is an incredibly important and valuable document that Cardinal Burke said that "pastors and other teachers of the faith" must present to the Faithful so that the Exhortation "serves to build up the body of Christ in its first cell of life, which is marriage and the family."

Cardinal Burke declared that we must receive Amoris Laetitia "in fidelity to the magisterium" to "confirm spouses in the grace of the sacrament of holy matrimony, so that they may be a sacrament of the faithful and enduring love of God for us “from the beginning,” which reached its fullest manifestation in the redemptive incarnation of God the Son."

3. Cardinal Burke declared that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent in line with Church teaching. Cardinal Burke insisted that Amoris Laetitia, a post-synodal document, "does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time."

Amoris Laetitia is a very important document. Bishops throughout the world are implementing AL. AL will (is having) have a profound impact upon the Church.

Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent in line with the True Church's "perennial doctrine and discipline," according to Cardinal Burke.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."Mark Thomas, I hope you are already preparing your defense of this upcoming travesty. You have plenty of time to prepare to tell us why the following statements to be read by either the Pope or someone under him in his presence are actually good things!"

Why must I prepare a defense of the "upcoming travesty"? Why must I prepare to tell folks "why the following statements to be read by either the Pope or someone under him in his presence are actually good things"?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, here is the latest from Father Zuhlsdorf, whom you referenced, in regard to the Commission to study the question in regard to women and the diaconate.

"It is good to know who the people in this new study group are. I know some of them already, personally or by reputation. I’m looking around for more on those whom I don’t know.

"So far, from what I can tell, the commission as a whole will probably lean in the direction of the impossibility of sacramental ordination. Several members will desire that outcome and are already “out” and in favor of it.

"Several members don’t seem to have pronounced themselves on the matter, but are “conservative”; they will not be in favor."

If Father Zuhlsdorf is correct, His Holiness Pope Francis has packed the Commission with conservatives who have opposed, as well as those who will oppose likely, the sacramental ordination of women to the diaconate.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Johnno said...

Gladly Mark Thomas -

1. The case was an Argentine woman, Jaquelina Lisbona, married to a divorced man. Her parish priest, knowing her situation refused her and her divorcee husband Holy Communion. She said she could not go to Confession because she knew that once she returned home she would be living in sin and therefore could not make a sincere confession. Pope Francis phoned her up, referring to himself as Fr. Bergolio, telling her to receive Communion "without problems."

The Phone call was confirmed by Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica of the Vatican Press Office to CNN, saying the contents of the call were between the Pope and the woman.

Fr. Federico Lombadi then entered damage control stating that nobody should infer anything from this event or see it as having anything to do with the proper teachings of the Church. No other clarifications were given as to how the Pope had any authority to do this. We were just told to ignore it.


2. BWAHAHAHA! What "exceptional circumstance in accord with Church teachings"? Please cite for me what circumstances are there where committed non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion Mr. Thomas!

And HOW VERY SUSPICIOUS that you didn't quote Pope Francis in full! Here's the full quote:

“I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.”

Why did you conveniently leave out the last portion Mark Thomas? What do you think that suggests? Let me help you, taken in full context with his other statements that very day trying to equate Lutherans and Catholics as being the same, sharing the same baptism and walking together without all that difficult doctrine getting in the way, is that Pope Francis, KNOWING that to suggest that a non-Catholic take communion is WRONG, imagines " “Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations" and tells the non-Catholic woman to submit that question to her own subjective feelings (Unless you are going to tell me Pope Francis actually told her to go and physically speak to Jesus Christ), and then to 'go forward', aka do whatever she decides to do, in this case could be to go forward in the Communion line. And he'll look the other way.

On top of that he doesn't dare to say anything more, which likely means, giving him the best interpretation, he refuses to do what a Pope does and TEACH THIS NON-CATHOLIC about Holy Communion!

And let's not forget what happened 2 months later when Finnish Lutherans, including Lutheran Bishop Samuel Salmi after a private meeting and personal audience with Pope Francis, at the Mass, were instructed to receive Holy Communion, even though they initially refused, the celebrating priests insisted they take it. According to Salmi's testimony, after receiving Communion after meeting the Pope, "this was NOT a coincidence"! Saying further - “At the root of this there is, without a doubt, the ecumenical attitude of a new Vatican.”

And

“The pope was not here at the mass, but his strategic intention is to carry out a mission of love and unity. There are also theological adversaries in the Vatican, for which reason it is difficult to assess how much he can say, but he can permit practical gestures.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of Divine Worship had to publicly express concerns about what the Pope has said and clarify that one must be Catholic and in accord with the Church's rules to receive Communion, not out of personal desire.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas -

So this 'not an act of the magisterium' document, like the 'not a dogmatic council' Vatican II is a 'very important work' 'perpetual visible source' 'foundation' and is being 'implemented throughout the world' in order to have 'a profound impact upon the Church.'

Ah yes, Cardinal Burke is after all a Vatican II man. Well versed in doublespeak that he must continually reassure us that everything is A-Ok, but he refuses to answer any difficult questions like Schneider has.

Let's try it Mark, tell me, which one of these is true about the teaching of Conscience and our culpubaility to sin?

Veritatis Splendor?

Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes…In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a ‘subjective’ error about moral good with the ‘objective’ truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience (art. 62-63).


Or Amoris Letitia?

Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience…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 (AL 303).

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end (AL 305).

I expect a detailed logical response from you. Not referrals to Cardinal Burke's unsubstantiated feelings about Amoris Letitia.

Johnno said...

"Why must I prepare a defense of the "upcoming travesty"? Why must I prepare to tell folks "why the following statements to be read by either the Pope or someone under him in his presence are actually good things"?" - Mark Thomas

Because given your pattern here I'm predicting you'll do precisely that. But I'm always open to surprises.



"If Father Zuhlsdorf is correct, His Holiness Pope Francis has packed the Commission with conservatives who have opposed, as well as those who will oppose likely, the sacramental ordination of women to the diaconate." - Mark Thomas

Except this is a straw man, knowing how the modernists operate, they are not looking to expose the obvious. They are looking for compromise and synthesis.

Following this predictable pattern means that -

1) Women's ordination will of course not occur. None of us are actually expecting this.

2) Some new ministry for laywomen to do the job of deacons will be created to give the impression that they are, which will be couched in vague language calling for more active ministries for women at the altar.

3) Novus Ordo Catholics will praise the document and state that the Church doctrine has been upheld!

4) Trads will point out how the vague language will be taken advantage of by heretics and modernists and even contradicts perennial Church Teachings.

5) Bishops will express joy at the document as well as 'some concerns' but will happily chew it down. Burke will tell us it's not magisterial, but nonetheless to be received with respect, less complaining and straining every word of it through the presser to get the few drops of fidelity to the magisterium as he can and never once address any of the arguments raised by #4.

6) Mark Thomas will quote us from numbers #3 & #5 to reassure us that Pope Francis is orthodox and the deacon-document is 100% in line with the True Church's perennial doctrine and discipline. Even as the altars ware gradually surrounded by more women raising their hands during the consecration and distributing Holy Communion and blessing every child who comes forward while dressed in white robes while Father sits in the corner.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno..."Jaquelina Lisbona."

Here is the Apostolic See's official statement on the phone call and claim in question.

"That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion. Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences”.

1. That which was claimed in regard to the Jaquelina Lisbona matter lacked reliable confirmation.

2. The Apostolic See made clear the fact that "the teaching of the Church" remained untouched by the "misunderstanding" that surrounded the phone call in question.

3. You failed to support your claim about "phone calls." The Apostolic See's official statement contradicted your claim about Jaquelina Lisbona.
Lack of reliability.

4. Johnno, you claimed that "Pope Francis phoned her up...telling her to receive Communion "without problems."

Johnno, where is your proof that Pope Francis told her to receive Holy Communion "without problems"?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

WARNING!
To interpret NWO Councils and Prelates, it is imperative that the Reader bear the Modernist propensity for double speak, constantly in mind!
When will this myth of Vatican II not being infallible be put to death?

VATICAN II:

1. Vatican II fulfilled all the conditions to be Infallible Magisterium, if Montini be considered a true Pope:
i. The Pope promulgated the Council documents, teaching Faith and Morals,
ii in his capacity as Pope,
iii to the Universal Church.

2. Paul VI Audience, 12 Jan., 1966:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogma endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the AUTHORITY of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

3. Paul VI told Archbishop Lefebvre, who wished to interpret the documents of Vatican II “in accordance with tradition.”:
"You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic."
(Epistle Cum te, Notitia # 12 11 Oct., 1976.)
[Just for the record, the Ordinary Magisterium is binding on our conscience and to declare the entire content of the documents of Vatican II to be part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM makes Vatican II super Infallible and Magisterial!]

4. "As even Paul VI declared, Vatican II is NOTHING MORE than, as you say, 'PRUDENTIAL POLICY..."
(Mark & Johnno.)

5.John Paul II has expressed his full agreement with Paul VI whom he considers as his "spiritual father", and has further stated that the Council was "inspired by the Holy Spirit", and that "obedience to the Council is obedience to the Holy Spirit."
(Redemptor Hominis and Speech to the Sacred College reported in Documentation Catholique (Paris), 1975, pp. 1002-3.)

6.Burke: "Given the Holy Spirit was never invoked for VII to teach ANYTHING INFALLIBLE..."

AMORIS LAETITIA:

1. Bergoglio: “Look, I have written an encyclical and an apostolic exhortation, and I continually make declarations and give homilies, and this is magisterium“.
( <a href="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350935?eng=y"
Chiesa )

2. "... Burke to uphold the 'orthodoxy' of a document he himself dismisses as being unimportant and NOT part of the deposit of faith and having NO MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY ."

3. " Raymond Cardinal Burke declared the following: "Pope Francis makes clear, from the beginning, that the post-synodal apostolic exhortation is NOT an act of the MAGISTERIUM."

4. "Cardinal Burke declared that we must receive Amoris Laetitia "in FIDELITY to the MAGISTERIUM"

One really could not make this stuff up!

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."Why did you conveniently leave out the last portion Mark Thomas? What do you think that suggests? Let me help you, taken in full context with his other statements that very day trying to equate Lutherans and Catholics as being the same, sharing the same baptism and walking together without all that difficult doctrine getting in the way, is that Pope Francis, KNOWING that to suggest that a non-Catholic take communion is WRONG, imagines " “Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations" and tells the non-Catholic woman to submit that question to her own subjective feelings (Unless you are going to tell me Pope Francis actually told her to go and physically speak to Jesus Christ), and then to 'go forward', aka do whatever she decides to do, in this case could be to go forward in the Communion line. And he'll look the other way."

1. I didn't realize that I had "left" anything out in that regard.

2. The bottom line is that His Holiness Pope Francis declared to the Lutheran woman that he "would never dare give permission to do this because I do not have the authority."

3. Pope Francis' statement to the Lutheran lady, "One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more," actually placed her on the spot.

If she truly wished to receive Holy Communion, alongside her Catholic husband, then Pope Francis solved her problem. Pope Francis reminded the Lutheran lady that there is one baptism, one Lord, and one Faith. Pope Francis exhorted her to "talk to the Lord and then go forward."

To where would his advice lead her? After having talked (honestly) to the Lord, the Lutheran lady would move forward to the Catholic Church, in communion with her husband...in communion with Pope Francis, who exhorted her to turn to the Lord.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Peter Lamb,

What is difficult to understand in regard to Cardinal Burke's comments in regard to Amoris Laetita.

1. Cardinal Burke argued that AL is not magisterial.

2. Cardinal Burke did not "dismiss" the Exhortation as "unimportant."

3. He said how "then, is the document to be received? First of all, it should be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman pontiff as the Vicar of Christ..."

"Certain commentators confuse such respect with a supposed obligation to “believe with divine and Catholic faith” everything contained in the document. But the Catholic Church, while insisting on the respect owed to the Petrine office as instituted by Our Lord himself, has never held that every utterance of the Successor of St. Peter should be received as part of her infallible magisterium."

"The Church has historically been sensitive to the erroneous tendency to interpret every word of the pope as binding in conscience, which, of course, is absurd."

4. "With the publication of Amoris Laetitia, the task of pastors and other teachers of the faith is to present it within the context of the Church’s teaching and discipline, so that it serves to build up the body of Christ in its first cell of life, which is marriage and the family."

5. "In other words, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation can only be correctly interpreted, as a non-magisterial document, using the key of the magisterium, as it is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (85-87)."
============================================================================

Cardinal Burke believes that AL is non-Magisterial. Various Cardinals and bishops disagree with that. As far as I'm concerned, that is up to Rome to determine.

That discussion aside, what Cardinal Burke said, even if Al is not Magisterial, is line with Church teaching.

As Cardinal Burke noted, even if AL is non-Magisterial...

"How, then, is the document to be received? First of all, it should be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman pontiff as the Vicar of Christ, in the words of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of both the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium, 23)."

Again, as Cardinal Burke noted...

"Certain commentators confuse such respect with a supposed obligation to “believe with divine and Catholic faith” (Canon 750, § 1) everything contained in the document. But the Catholic Church, while insisting on the respect owed to the Petrine office as instituted by Our Lord himself, has never held that every utterance of the Successor of St. Peter should be received as part of her infallible magisterium."

Why is difficult to grasp that a non-Magisterial Papal document, if that is what we have in Amoris Laetitia, should be received with respect and most definitely be used to build up the Body of Christ?

That is difficult to comprehend?

Cardinal Burke's take on AL is easy to understand.

-- The document contains opinions/suggestions by Pope Francis.

-- AL is not part of the infallible Magisterium.

-- AL is the fruit of the seeds sown by the Synod of Bishops on the Family.

-- AL can be employed "to build up the body of Christ in its first cell of life, which is marriage and the family."

That constitutes modernistic "double speak" on Cardinal Burke's part? Really?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

They speak like politicians telling different groups what they want to hear ,it's not what's said ,it's what's implied .They claim doctrine will not be changed ,but if pastoral practice is changed ,doctrine becomes obsolete.Do not go by what they say ,but by what they do.The very presence of a Pope at a ceremony celebrating Martin Luther is an abomination.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mark and/or Johnno, Please will you give me a reference source for:
"As even Paul VI declared, Vatican II is NOTHING MORE than, as you say, 'PRUDENTIAL POLICY..."?
I would like to add it to my collection of statements made by Paul VI regarding VII.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas -

1. My proof is that the Vatican issued non-denials and on top of that didn't accuse Jacquelina Lisbona of lying or put pressure on either her or the media stories to retract, and neither has Pope Francis himself come out to deny the matter. And his actions following are consistent with this incident.

That's all the proof one needs. But apparently you love to swallow PR. It's time for you to be educated on PR speak and the sophistry used by government, large corporations, the media and even the Vatican's own press department. When the Apostolic See says, "cannot be confirmed as reliable" this means they WILL NOT publicly confirm anything, NOT that the account is unreliable, because that in turn opens them up to lawsuits if they were to challenge Jacquelina's public statements. And this is obviously not the road they've chosen to go down. If you understand Lombardi's job, then it is to prevent scandal, so even if Pope Francis told him to his face that this is what occurred, his job is to keep his mouth shut and spin it in the best way possible, wording it however carefully he can so that to the general gullible public, aka Mark Thomas, don't catch on, while leaving himself an out in case he is challenged in court to explain the meaning of his words before a prosecutor seeking to know if he and the Vatican wanted to calumniate Jacquelina.

Your hilarious attempt to spin this any other way is what I expected. Perhaps you ought to apply for Fr. Lombardi's job once he's gone, but I hear Pope Francis filled it with a Protestant.


2. Nobody buys your excuse that you "didn't realize that (you) had "left" anything out in that regard." You deliberately cut out Pope Francis' quote to get rid of the troublesome aspect that undermines your attempt to whitewash his crime. I know this because that very last part you omitted was the entire source of the scandal reported everywhere. There was no way you were not aware of it. And I'm publicly calling you out here for deliberately attempting to mislead and now attempting to lie, which like Fr. Lombardi's PR about Pope Francis' phone call to Jacquelina you craftily phrased as 'not realizing.' When you really meant it you didn't realize I'd notice your omission as you hoped in that 'regard' (your attempt to mislead by selective quotation).

Your following attempt to reinterpret Pope Francis' words is also laughable because within the context of everything he said he is declaring that there is little to no difference between Catholics and Lutherans and laments over the things that keep them apart. So no, he's not calling anyone to conversion, especially not at a ecumenical event, particularly one that he is going to celebrate later with full pomp and ceremony. Nice try!

Johnno said...

Peter Lamb -

I was only paraphrasing the entire exercise of Vatican II. The non-dogmatic but pastoral-for-out-times council. Authoritative one way, but not in another. The Council which changed nothing yet changed everything.

There are no new dogmas in the council. Therefore there is nothing new there to bind Catholics. They claim it is authoritative. Authoritative to what? Pastoral practices and disciplines that are subject to change? Ways of speaking? Ecumenical methods? Platitudes for the other false faiths? So are we to consider the absurd idea that if someone refuses to accept that Muslims claim to worship the same God, or believe that we should try harder to convert the Jews, or do not think there's as much good in this religion as that one, then they are denying Vatican II and are heretics? I'm sure Mark Thomas will try to argue this so that he can save the Council's supposed authority, but nobody can take such absurdities seriously. It contradicts the entirety of what has come before. Period. Then we get into arguments of sophistry about how certain words are worded or should be expressed or interpreted through a secret decoder ring of continuity.

I recommend using Youtube to look up 'Fr. Hesse: Why Catholics May Doubt Whether Vatican II Was a Valid Council' for more info. In the end, not even Pius VI or any of the periti can give us a straight answer about this novel council convened because John XXIII had a 'good feeling' and dismissed the Children of Fatima and the Queen of Heaven as misguided doomsayers.

Something to bide our time as we wait for Mark Thomas to tell us how Amoris Letitia doesn't contradict Veritas Splendor on the topic of 'conscience.'

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Johnno, I understand.
Montini said, on at least two occasions, (one public), that he invoked the Magisterium, so if he had been a true Pope, Vatican II would most certainly have been binding on all Catholics. Fortunately he wasn't, so who cares what it says? Same would have applied to AL.