"ADVENT EMBER SATURDAY" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Friday, 16 September 2016

Catholic Bishops of Alberta in Canada declare themselves as, well Catholic

It's absolutely true.

Pigs have been found flying over the Alberta foothills.


Image result for pigs can fly

But what will they do now since their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is not that of Bergoglio's?

From the Catholic Bishops of Alberta!
http://caedm.ca/Portals/0/documents/family_life/2016-09-14_PastoralAccompanimenttoDivorcedandRemarried.pdf
It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest. This view is erroneous. Couples who express it should be welcomed to meet with a priest so that they hear proposed anew “God’s plan [pertaining to marriage] in all its grandeur” (Amoris Laetitia, 307) and thus be helped to understand the correct path to follow toward full reconciliation with the Church.
…The gentle and clear guidance of the pastor as he helps the couple to form a right conscience will assist them greatly to live in accordance with their objective situation. Should the tribunal process result in a declaration of nullity, they will understand the need to proceed toward the celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony. In the case where the tribunal upholds the validity of the first union, obedience in faith to the indissolubility of marriage as revealed by Christ will make clear to them the actions that must follow. They are bound to live with the consequences of that truth as part of their witness to Christ and his teaching on marriage. This may be difficult. If, for example, they are unable to separate for the sake of the care of children, they will need to refrain from sexual intimacy and live in chastity “as brother and sister” (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 84). Such a firm resolution to live in accordance with the teaching of Christ, relying always on the help of his grace, opens to them the possibility of celebrating the sacrament of Penance, which in turn may lead to the reception of Holy Communion at Mass. —from Guidelines For the Pastoral Accompaniment of Christ’s Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried Without a Decree of Nullity, September 14, 2016, Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross

50 comments:

BillyHW said...

Wow. Truth spoken simply, clearly and concisely. I'm pleasantly surprised. (Pleasantly shocked rather.) Credit where credit is due.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

I am so grateful to our Bishops for fulfilling their duty, in accordance with the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ.

However, the stress on gentleness in this document, does not correspond to the spirit of the Holy Scriptures.

I would like to see adults approach other adults with tact, intelligence and wisdom. Let us leave gentleness for vulnerable babies.


Adults in invalid second marriages are fornicators, and if Catholic, they know it. Tactful reaffirmation of Catholic teaching is in order, not gentleness.

Let us not forget the marriage vows of these people, words they chose to solemnly speak before God, each other, their family and friends. "For better or worse" includes trials and betrayals.

I fail to appreciate this patronizing gentleness, which is a refusal to respect another. Even a child doesn't like being talked down to. When a child commits a sin, he doesn't expect gentle accompaniment, but a due rebuke instead.

We were not created to brake into tears or to lose ground under our feet at each obstacle or difficulty. As Christians we are called to take up our cross and follow Christ. Many were martyred for the sake of His Name.

I am quite sure that what Bergoglio calls gentleness, is simply another name for political correctness. According to progressives, telling the truth rather than practising PC/gentleness should be criminalized.

Michael Dowd said...

On the face of it good work by the Bishops. Mark Thomas should approve.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, various traditionalists insist that Amoris Laetitia is heretical. They insist that AL contains page after page of heretical teachings. They insist that bishops who have declared that AL is orthodox are liars and advance the destruction of the Church.

Conversely, as you noted, in regard to their guidelines related to Amoris Laetitia, the bishops of Alberta proved themselves Catholic. How can they be "Catholic" when they uphold Amoris Laetitia which, supposedly, is vile and heretical?

Immediately in their document, on page one, the bishops of Alberta declared that Amoris Laetita "conveys the beautiful invitation to encounter Jesus Christ, who pours out the Spirit of Love and Truth in the vast diversity of family life situations."

Amoris Laetitia "reflects and upholds the Tradition of the Church," according to the bishops of Alberta.

Are not the bishops of Alberta heretical, rather than Catholic, as they teach that Amoris Laetitia is a 100 percent orthodox document that "reflects and upholds the Tradition of the Church"?

I am just trying to understand as to how the bishops of Alberta are Catholic, when they uphold and promote Amoris Laetitia, which, supposedly, is an "heretical" document.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Michael Dowd said..."On the face of it good work by the Bishops."

Good work by the bishops? You accept that Amoris Laetitia is a beautiful, traditional, orthodox Catholic document, as the bishops in question declared?

Are you the Michael Dowd who, two or three months ago on Vox's blog, exchanged comments with me in regard to Amoris Latitia? That Michael Dowd insisted that Amoris Laetitia promoted mortal sin. That Michael Dowd insisted that Amoris Laetitia was vile and would be overthrown by God.

I recall vividly that Vox posted a story about an Australian scholar who spewed venom at Amoris Laetitia. I noted point by point, where she had misrepresented Amoris Laetitia.

A "Michael Dowd" responded to me, rejected by comments, supported the Australian scholar, then called for Amoris Laetitia to be withdrawn.

If you are that Michael Dowd who posted here, then your opinion of Amoris Laetitia has changed dramatically.

Anyway, do you agree with the bishops of Alberta that Amoris Laetitia is an orthodox, traditional document?

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Blogger Michael Dowd said..."On the face of it good work by the Bishops. Mark Thomas should approve."

I agree with you. Good work by the bishops of Alberta. As they declared, Amoris Laetitia is a beautiful Apostolic Exhortation that is in line with Tradition.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

I know a priest in the States who knows that divorced remarried Catholics, without annulment, gay men and women, non Catholics, especially on occasions of weddings, funerals, midnight Christmas mass,etc. have been receiving Communion for decades on end. Even Jewish people when the occasion arises. It's so common now that the majority of priests know this. Many of them are unwilling to do or say anything about it for fear of backlash or retribution from their bishop. After all, who places the shekels in the basket and will always be right in the eyes of the bishop? And if the priest is reassigned or even suspended of his priestly faculties, it isn't easy just to "find another bishop" who will take him in. Not in this toxic atmosphere we live in today. The 'ol Boys club is alive and never been so well. Always a priest, forever. So where do he turn? If the priest doesn't have another college degree other than in theology, he will find it extremely difficult to find another course of action to help sustain himself financially.He is at the mercy of his bishop. Most priests in the US normally gross around $20,000 a year on the east or west coast dioceses of the country, but it is still well below the poverty level. And with no tax deductions, his federal taxes alone (not including State), will chop nearly a quarter of his gross income. I realize this isn't the spiritual aspect of all this, but there are underlying reasons why the clergy are unwilling to take a stand. Cowards? For some, perhaps, especially if they come from wealthy families, who have invested or socked a lot of their money without declaring it to the IRS. But that is the cold hard facts, at least a part of it. I could write more, but this is sufficient. Please don't misunderstand: it is wonderful and a special grace to endure a white martyrdom, but like everything in life, especially on a blog,it is easier said than done. I wish it were otherwise.

Kathleen said...

Here we go.

THIS is precisely how Francis will force orthodox Catholics to not only accept his push to place everything, including DOGMA AND DOCTRINE, in the hands of each individual location.

Because of the HERESY of Francis orthodox Catholics will cry for and applaud when their diocese or group of dioceses takes it upon themselves to INDEPENDENTLY take a stand on DOGMA AND DOCTRINE.

THIS IS A TWO PRONGED ATTACK AND MUST BE DEALT WITH AS SUCH.

Michael Dowd said...

Mark Thomas said to me:

"Anyway, do you agree with the bishops of Alberta that Amoris Laetitia is an orthodox, traditional document?"

No, of course not, I do not agree that AL is an orthodox, traditional document; quite the opposite. I agreed, however, that the Bishops are standing up for the traditional teaching of the Church and not the intended meaning of the document by Pope Francis. This is simply a move to protect the Bishops deniability so they can claim they officially preach traditional Catholic truth. Smart move on their part.

And Mark, you knew this is what I meant from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

Should have known that Mark Thomas would ask Vox to comment on the Canada Bishops issue, and then when he does comment, Mark Thomas manipulates the situation by then asking (among other things)..."How can they be Catholic, when they uphold Amoris Laetitia, which supposedly is vile and heretical?"

Mark Thomas was setting up Vox, which is typical of progressives.

M. Ray

Johnno said...

Let us answer Mark Thomas STUPID STUPID Question.

And let us also be completely aware that Mark THomas himself KNOWS the answer to this question, but is a devil who likes to obfuscate and play dishonest mind-games with his opponent. Like an abuser who manipulates his victim by getting them to question reality in their own heads merely by overloading you to move away from the actual topic into imaginary hypothetical questions that do not in fact exist.

Here is Mark Thomas' Stupid Question:

"How can they be "Catholic" when they uphold Amoris Laetitia which, supposedly, is vile and heretical?"


Here is the answer:

Because the Bishops of Alberta, wishing to avoid direct confrontation with the Pope, and unwilling to deal with the consequences of such an action as to openly call the Pope on his heresy, are playing the politician's game, where just as modernists can interpret clear doctrine in heretical ways, then the Albetan Bishops, taking a play from the same playbook, attempt to score points by interpreting heresy in an orthodox way.

This is a game of PR-speak and diplomacy. The Albertan bishops, want to avoid a situation in the Church where the Pope and Amoris Letitia is exposed as the heresy as it is. Because that means they are obligated by God to take action against the Pope, but they themselves don't know what to do, and they wish to avoid a situation of open-case textbook schism. They are also avoiding having to be forced to reflect upon themselves and all they've supported via the Vatican II apparatus. Essentially, they do not have the cajoles that the SSPX do, and they, like Ann Barnhardt revealed would rather look the other way and hope Francis dies off soon and that the Holy Spirit will somehow magically fix things without them having to do any heavy lifting.

In the same way that no other nation will ever directly accuse America of lying with regards to the MH-17 plane shoot-down of having false evidence that nobody but them can be allowed to see. Russia, in the role of the Albertan Bishops, knowing the investigation is being rigged, merely stepped forth and put all their cards on the table with regards to AT surveillance. All which indicates the Americans have nothing but hot air despite the Eiropean protests to actual produce their supposed evidence. And everybody knows this. But NO NATION - has stepped forth to formally accuse America of the obvious. Why? Because this means taking action. This means confrontation. This means risk. This means WAR.

The Albertan Bishops want to avoid the war they have a duty to fight under the excuse of preserving the 'peace' & 'unity.' We are in the Cold War. And the Bishops want to avoid a Hot War with Francis that risks dividing the Church, and having to reflect back on their own actions since 1960. Thus they will take the route of both upholding orthodoxy while simultaneously putting up with Amoris Laetitia, DESPITE the document.

Only fools would fall for these headlines, but Mark Thomas is not that. Instead he is carrying out his mission of making sure the propaganda propagates, which is - KEEP CALM & AMORIS ON. Don't ask questions. Just keep silent and address heresy with obtuseness.

Johnno said...

Alos for everyone, may I point you all to Rorate's Caeli's

'Op-Ed: "Adultery as a venial sin" -- and other absurdities of trying to defend the indefensible Francis Doctrine'
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/09/op-ed-adultery-as-venial-sin-and-other.html

And Louie Verricho's

'Is Francis a heretic?'
https://akacatholic.com/is-francis-a-heretic/

Whereby both take Jeff Mirius' (And by association Edward Peter's) embarassing defense of Francis to the task exposing their position as the absurdity that it is.

Keep in mind their points because you just know Mark Thomas will be here soon enough quoting the Mirius' 'Adultery can be venial sin' defense.

For which I'll also remind everyone that as Francis said to Scalfari, aside from Mirius' imaginary scenarios, ALL (Adulterers) WHO ASK WILL BE PERMITTED (To Holy Communion). All such lovely heresies Francis shared with Scalfari can be found published in a book from the Vatican under Francis' seal of approval! Someone should buy Mark Thomas a copy. Lots of lovely quotes!

Mark Thomas said...

To: M. Ray:

Oh, yeah. I set up Vox. He is a pushover. I fooled him. Yeah. Right. Now, back to reality.

M Ray, to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your claim, had you paid attention, you would have noted that when I asked Vox to comment upon the bishops of Alberta's guidelines for Amoris Laetitia, in that same comment, I quoted the document several times.

I could not possibly have set up Vox, as you claimed, to comment upon the document...then, as you said, I would spring my supposed trap by saying to Vox..."How can they be Catholic, when they uphold Amoris Laetitia, which supposedly is vile and heretical?"

M. Ray, your comment is preposterous. Again, Vox knew that I had demonstrated that the bishops of Alberta had upheld Amoris Laetitia as 100 percent orthodox.

I wanted to read Vox's comments about the document. I thought that he might know such things as whether the bishops of Alberta are considered liberal, conservative...was he surprised that they were, as he noted, "Catholic" in the sense that they had taken a strong stance in favor of Tradition.

That is what I thought when I asked Vox to comment on the story. Again, I could not have possibly surprised him with my positive comments about the guidelines as I had quoted the bishops of Alberta's positive comments about Amoris Laetitia.

M. Ray, you will have to try again to attempt to defame me. Your first attempt proved futile.

My comment (and request for Vox's comments" is found here:

10:29 pm, September 15, 2016

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/09/bergoglios-words-are-now-seen-as-green.html

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Kathleen1031 said...

I often post under "Kathleen1031" but I am going to change my screen name. Just sayin.

Dan said...

I may change my screen name to Mark Thomas. Maybe we all should....

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

So, Bergoglio has finally confirmed in writing and with own autograph that the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ and the perennial Church teaching are not gentle enough toward (some) adulterers.

We knew Mark Thomas would be unmoved in his stance on the orthodoxy of pope Francis, and we still indulge him. A sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.

I once thought that Mark Thomas could be a paid troll, sent here with the goal of gradually getting many of us here to compromise on honesty, integrity, rationality, and finally - the absolute Truth. Let's face it, what comes at us from Bergoglio is outrageous. His words are unworthy of careful consideration. Yet we keep paying attention, and we gradually swallow as norm more and more outrage.


Now I think that Mark Thomas could be a computer program. It is cheaper this way. We start with a data base of encyclicals and such, and a command - the Holy Father, pope Francis, is always orthodox.

We know he is not, but the program will always produce the judgement of complete orthodoxy. The comments produced are never going to be truthful, because they have been predetermined as such.

On occasion, we are going to see Mark Thomas pour his heart to us: Oh, I was so broken-hearted, it seemed to me like AL could contain an unorthodox statement, but we are safely out of danger zone, because cardinal A, B or C just said that it is orthodox.

"So and so said such and such", if he is a cardinal, is written into the program as proof, while Bergoglio's signed letter is not.

The man needs help. Please, do not tell me to be... nice. "Nice" is not what I aspire to. I could write a whole essay on the anti-culture of niceness.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

OK, I refuse to be nice, but I will attempt to be a better Christian.

From now on, I will pray for Mark Thomas, provided he is not a computer program.

I ask the almighty and loving God to remove the scales from the eyes of the one who has no ability or no courage (or who lacks both) to see, be it me, Mark Thomas or both. I am sure I am mistaken on many points, but quite certain Bergoglio is not a Catholic. Should I be mistaken, may God forgive me and help me see clearly. Same goes for the apparent computer program who might be a real man.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Dorota once again. I think there is no good trying to engage Mark at this point. He obviously will refuse to see the truth no matter how many point it out to him. He wastes enough time in the combox.

Johnno said...

No Mark Thomas. We are dealing with reality. You are peddling with lies while pretending to be obtuse, while everyone here knows you are untrustworthy, and when caught, pretend to be innocent and fake outrage and shock that anyone would dare to confront you on it and then try to attack the victims.

You did NOT ' demonstrate' that the bishops of Alberta had upheld Amoris Laetitia as '100 percent orthodox.' You merely highlighted how the Post-Conciliar Church has a habit of wearing magical glasses whenever they must put out PR statements with concern to ambigious documents or clearly heretical things. NOT ONE of the 100% orthodox Amoris-claimants can demonstrate how Amoris Letitia does not constitute a break from Church practice, from heresy, and from contradicting Famaliaris Consortio! They merely assert it and expect you to believe them, like Hillary Clinton's Campaign Office repeatedly asserts that she's healthy and fine, despite all evidence to the contrary; or like the Western Press whores continue to claim that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, or that the Syrian Rebels, who all fly the flag of ISIS are the good guys to be supported from big bad Assad and Russia. Just keep repeating the lie over and over again. That's what the Albertan Bishops are doing, as is Mark Thomas, who for a month now has never addressed any of the contradictions of Amoris Letitia we've put before him, but who demands that we answer his stupid questions, not because he's seeking the truth, but because they are designed to test the sanity of those he wishes to manipulate through sophist mis-quoted, craftily worded phrases.

Mark Thomas knows the answers to his questions. He is aware that the Canadian Bishops lean liberal. To what extent we are discovering, perhaps that even for them the Pope's heresy has gone too far. But they are not strong enough to express the full extent of the Truth publicly. If Francis and his Kasperian Gang can play the fiddle, then so can they.

Johnno said...

But notice the absurd reality a sap like Mark Thomas doesn't want you to realize. The VERY FACT that the Albertan Bishops have to put out a public PR statement upholding Church Teaching on the reception of the Eucharist and attempt to try and reinforce Amoris Letitia's 'orthodoxy' in the face of recent news about the Pope's remarks is BY ITSELF a public action that exposes the farce of Amoris Letitia, and the Pope's heresy! Because if Amoris were really orthodox in its text, and if Pope Francis were really orthodox in his statements, there would be NO NEED to put out a PR statement, and there would be NO NEWS to discuss here! That this statement had to be made is proof POSITIVE that there is a PROBLEM with Amoris Letitia, and a PROBLEM with Francis. They won't be the last either. I expect the same "Amoris-fine, Pope-is-nice-guy, but-we're-still-not-supporting-adultery" statements to come from Poland, Africa and elsewhere. The other heretical bishops will not say anything they will just go ahead and hand Christ over.

So the only thing FUTILE here is Mark Thomas' continued existence, and the narrative he tries to spin, even when he himself is not bearing false witness against good honest Catholic men that he has attempted to defame. But like the little pittance that Mark Thomas is, he instead has tries to turn the fault back onto M. Ray.

Don't give Mark Thomas any benefit of the doubt. Pray for him, but do not spare him from the rod. He is as Ann Barnhardt rightly identifies as a Diabolical Narcissist -

“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn’t it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill — he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness.”

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Father Zosima to Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, father of the brothers Karamazov and Diabolical Narcissist

This describes Mark Thomas' routine behavior here.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas is essentially right.

What Vox and Louis Verrechio seem to not realize is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. If the Pope, in Amoris Laetitia, officially endorsed mortal sin, the Catholic faith would be proven false. The Church has condemned the notion that she can provide harmful disciplines on several occasions and in different documents. And theologians are morally unanimous on this point too. This is fairly basic stuff: the Magisterium cannot endorse sin, and yet this is exactly what people like Vox and Louis V, and now it seems Rorate Caeli, want people to believe.

I wonder if Vox is going around tying to make converts to Catholicism from Protestantism and Orthodoxy these days, by assuring them that the Apostolic See is free from any taint of error, as Vatican I taught?

Guys like Ed Peters and Mirus are, and let us be honest, the Cardinals and Bishops (even Bishop Schneider) are not publically calling this stuff heresy, presumably, in part, because they realize that by doing so, they would be fighting against their own belief system. And besides, the purported heresy is not clear at all, anyways.

It is simply not tenable for a Catholic to hold to the idea that the papacy is directly leading souls to hell by it's official (Magisterial) teaching. Why be a Catholic if it could do such a thing?

St Columba



Eirene said...

He is a real man alright with a supremely real ego and seemingly endless time on his hands to prove everyone else wrong and more wrong on everything. A fairly empty and sad raison d'etre if you ask me!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Johnno said...

Let us answer Mark Thomas STUPID STUPID Question.

***** Perfectly Spot ON *****

JayBee said...

Mark Thomas gives credibility to the discussion because without him the combox here would read like one gigantic mutually-supportive griping session about the Church.

Because Mark's views are thoughtfully and intelligently presented (courteously too), and other commenters also offer intelligent ideas, we have a close approximation of a somewhat reasonable discussion of critical issues in the Church today.

Hence Vox's blog is rare in the tradosphere for not being a squawking riot of - not computers - parrots.

Thank goodness for Mark! Agree or not, we benefit from reasonable exchange of viewpoints about the Faith we all love.

Vox Cantoris said...

JayBee,

Thank you!

Mark and Dr. Peter provide a perspective that challenges, I have toyed with "rules" and then rejected the idea.

They also keep me thinking and I appreciate them, and all who take interest here on these issues.

Yes, without them, we would sound like parrots.

Anonymous said...

Pope John XXll fell into heresy regarding the Beautific Vision. He was opposed in his heresy, but then he recanted the heresy before he died. The Church lived on.

~M. Ray

Mark Thomas said...

Michael Dowd, I didn't know what you had meant from the beginning...other than to have thought that when you said "good work" by the bishops of Alberta, you praised their understanding of Amoris Laetita. What else should I have drawn from your following comment?

Michael Dowd: "On the face of it good work by the Bishops. Mark Thomas should approve."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Dowd, in your latest response, you said..."No, of course not, I do not agree that AL is an orthodox, traditional document; quite the opposite. I agreed, however, that the Bishops are standing up for the traditional teaching of the Church and not the intended meaning of the document by Pope Francis. This is simply a move to protect the Bishops deniability so they can claim they officially preach traditional Catholic truth. Smart move on their part."

The bishops of Alberta, Canada, are not sincere in their declaration in question? The declaration that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox is "simply a move to protect the Bishops deniability so they can claim they officially preach traditional Catholic truth. Smart move on their part."

In effect, the bishops of Alberta lied about Amoris Laetita — they declared that AL is in line with Tradition — to cover themselves and enable them to teach the Faith? If I have misrepresented your comments, please demonstrate my misrepresentations...and if I have done so, I apologize to you.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas


"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate."

Mark Thomas said...

Michael Dowd,

Michael, here is the bottom line in regard to the bishop of Alberta, and for that matter, all of us:

You insist that Amoris Laetitia and, of course, His Holiness Pope Francis, is heretical. Either the bishops of Alberta believe that AL is orthodox or they don't believe that AL is orthodox.

If they believe that Amoris Laetitia is not orthodox, but pretend that AL is orthodox to grant them the cover to teach the Faith, then they are liars. They are frauds.

If Amoris Laetitia and, most certainly, Pope Francis, fall within the realm of heresy, then each Cardinal, bishop, priest, religious, and laymen who has proclaimed AL orthodox, even if they don't really believe that AL is orthodox, is more than just a liar...

...each is a partaker and promoter of Pope Francis' supposed heresy/heresies.

Each Catholic who professes communion with "heretical" Pope Francis is a partaker and promoter of heresy.

Each Catholic, Eastern and Western, who, via the Divine Liturgy, says "Amen" to the commemoration of Pope Francis this weekend and beyond is a partaker and promoter of heresy.

Therefore, the only Catholics on earth are those who have severed communion with Pope Francis. That means that a just a handful, perhaps a few thousand Catholics, are the only Catholics on earth. Anybody else who calls himself "Catholic" is actually a partaker and promoter of heresy.

Those are the undeniable and grave consequences of your notion that Pope Francis is a heretic.

Michael, you would do well to notify the bishops of Alberta that they are partakers and promoters of heresy. They had best condemn Amoris Laetitia. From there, they had best sever communion with Pope Francis. Correct?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

Mark,

1. There are good paragraphs in Amoris Laetitia.

2. The heresy is in some paragraphs and footnotes.

3. A drop of poison in your glass of water will still kill you.

4. The Bishops of Alberta have basically followed Cardinal Burke.

5. They have interpreted the document in light of the Catholic faith.

6. They uphold Familiaris Consortio.

7. They don't wish to pick an open fight with the Bishop of Rome.

Michael Dowd said...

Mark: " If I have misrepresented your comments, please demonstrate my misrepresentations...and if I have done so, I apologize to you."

Hard to know whether you misrepresent or misunderstand. All the chicanery of AL will be done behind closed doors (pastoral guidance) and will be the exact opposite of officially stated doctrine. I was only agreeing that the Bishops had properly stated the doctrine so that they can't be accused of formal heresy. Informal heresy is what they are about, sneaky behind the scenes sub rosa de facto heresy. But nothing new there. Pope's themselves do it. It's all very clever don't you think Mark. Most folks call it hypocrisy, they call it pastoral care. Really, it's just another way of lying in order to make folks feel good about sinning. You can understand the above in your own unique way. I can't explain it any better.

Michael Dowd said...

Vox--I agree on all of this and let it also be my position to Mark who insists on being obtuse, argumentative or something. God have Mercy on him.

1. There are good paragraphs in Amoris Laetitia.

2. The heresy is in some paragraphs and footnotes.

3. A drop of poison in your glass of water will still kill you.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."Mark Thomas knows the answers to his questions. He is aware that the Canadian Bishops lean liberal."

Please don't lie about me. I asked about the bishops of Alberta. I don't know even know the name of one bishop of Alberta. I don't know whether they "lean left."

Your blanket statement that "Canadian Bishops lean left", and that I am aware supposedly of that fact, is beyond my knowledge. I have said several times here that I don't know what the terms "conservative, liberal, and traditionalists" actually mean. We use them...but what do they mean?

Is a Canadian bishop who participates in an ecumenical event "liberal?" Is he "liberal" when he visits and worships in a Protestant church?

Is he a traditional-leaning bishop suddenly when he says that the Bread and Wine during Mass become the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Is he a traditional-leaning bishop when he condemns abortion?

I have noted many times that our Churchmen are, if there is any true understanding of said terms, liberal/traditional at once. His Holiness Pope Francis is a "traditional-leaning" Pope when he promotes the SSPX. He is a "liberal-leaning" Pope when he prayed at a mosque.

Pope Benedict XVI was a "liberal-leaning" bishop when he praised the Arab Spring and prayed at a mosque. He was a "traditional-leaning" bishop when he issued Summorum Pontificum.

Therefore, please don't tell me what I know supposedly about Canadian bishops — in particular, the bishops of Alberta, about whom I asked. I don't even know their names.

Johnno, I can deal with the nasty digs and endless insults that you direct at me as they say far more about you than about me. But please don't lie about me.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Okay...Michael Dowd said that I am "obtuse, argumentative or something."

Michael Dowd said:

1. "There are good paragraphs in Amoris Laetitia." (Okay. I understand that.)

2. "The heresy is in some paragraphs and footnotes." (Okay. I understand that. I don't agree with that. But I understand that claim.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, please explain as to how I am being "obtuse, argumentative or something" in regard to the following:

A).......Amoris Laetitia contains heresies (supposedly).

B).......However, the Bishops of Alberta declared that Amoris Laetitia is a beautiful, orthodox document.

C).......The Bishops of Alberta either believe that or are liars.

D).......If they believe that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox, then the Bishops of Alberta are honest in their presentation of Amoris Laetitia.

E).......If they believe that Amoris Laetitia is heretical, then the Bishops of Alberta are undeniable liars.

*******(Have I said anything so far that is incorrect?)*******

F).......If the Bishops of Alberta are liars in that they know that Amoris Laetitia is heretical, and they simply do not wish to pick a fight with His Holiness Pope Francis, then not only are they liars...

...but the Bishops of Alberta are willful partakers and promoters of heresy. That is undeniable.

Therefore, would Michael Dowd, or anybody else, please explain as to why I am "obtuse, argumentative or something" in regard to the above?

Either the Bishops of Alberta believe that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox or, as has been claimed here, they only pretend that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox simply to avoid a fight with Pope Francis.

How on earth am I being obtuse when the above has been claimed here today? That is plain and simple what has been said here today.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said...

2. The heresy is in some paragraphs and footnotes.

4. The Bishops of Alberta have basically followed Cardinal Burke.

5. They have interpreted the document in light of the Catholic faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vox, how can an heretical document possibly be interpreted in the light of the Catholic faith?

As to Cardinal Burke, he made it clear that he believes that there isn't anything in AL that departs from Catholic teaching. The bishops of Alberta made that same point. They insist that AL on its own his free from heresy. One need not apply any clever tactic to render AL orthodox as the document is flat-out orthodox, according to Cardinal Burke and the bishops of Alberta.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Johnno said...

@ Anonymous 9:22 pm / St Columba ?

Incorrect. The Pope can indeed stray since the moment Peter denied Christ 3 times, and by example had to be set straight by Paul.

The Magisterium cannot endorse sin. But if by 'Magisterium' you mean only the human clergy still alive today, you are wrong as the Magisterium INCLUDES the Church Triumphant and the heritage of the Papacy and theologians stretching back to the Fathers and the Apostles themselves. The Magisterium is NOT just whatever happens to exist in the present day.

You need only crack open the Book of Revelation to St. John to see your error, given that prophecised is a great apostasy and a falling away of a majority of the Church. You need to understand the theology better because what you've put here doesn't hold any water whatsoever in light of actual Tradition, History and Scriptural evidence.

Want a reflection of the Church? Go look at the kingdom of Israel and the Temple with all its ups and downs. The perfect Catholic society you envision only exists in Heaven. Not on Earth for the time being.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

@ Mark Thomas

You do not want to understand why many are upset over your activities here.

No amount of explaining will make a difference.

Do you believe the teaching of the Catechism? Do you understand that rejecting even one doctrine of the Church makes you an apostate?

Do you understand that Bergoglio mocks catholic teaching while proclaiming "God is not Catholic"? While the statement is true, it is a mockery, because the Catholic Church claims to be the only one possessing the fullness of truth about God.

You do know that Bergoglio advised a woman to find a priest who would give her communion, even though she lived as an adulteress - even before he became pope.

He prays together with Jews who reject Christ.

Do you love your earthly father? Do you have a brother/sister/wife/child?

Do you think it is loving to get together and celebrate with people who offend your family members, deny their dignity and true nature?

You are exactly the kind of person Bergoglio bashes - a Pharisee. You spend your life attached to rules and letters, like a baby to a bottle of formula, not to living Truth.

Bergoglio's activities, including dealings with Castro and China are that of a traitor, not a good papa.

I could say much more to you, but you are a Pharisee.

I ask - who is your Lord? Papa Jorge?

Johnno said...

JayBee

Don't be folled by Mark Thomas' lamb-like nature.

He has engaged in selective deliberate mis-quotation intended to deceive, and not only has he mis-quoted those he disagrees with deliberately, he then used such misquotations as grounds for deliberate slandering and bearing false witness against them.

He's been caught repeatedly doing this.

If he'd only been dense we might've put up with it, but he's exposed himself and been called on it and refuses to acknowledge it.

When corrected on other topics, he continues to use the same discredited arguments over and over again in the hopes we'd forgotten. He also does so in order to frustrate and derail the conversation into areas other than the topic at hand. Then he proceeds to play the victim and slander us for being mean to him.

He feigns ignorance on certain things when it would be incredibly unlikely given he's been coming to Vox's blog for a very long time, and his own arguments in other places at other times in other contexts betray the fact that he does possess an understanding about things he claims not to know about. Just take a look at how he is pretending not to know the position of Canadian Bishops in North America. Now consider that he is well aware that Vox is a Canadian blogger who has been criticizing things in the Canadian Church for quite awhile, and that he has been commenting here for a good period of time. And he doesn't think the Church in Canada leans liberal? I laugh at his audacity, and given his past behavior I have no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt.

The 'thoughtful courteous' presentation of his remarks is the only card he has to play. Devils often appear as angels of light don't you know?

That's precisely the reason so many of us here are fed up with him. We've engaged with him politely before, or simply ignored him. But he has continued to persist, so now the gloves are off, not so much for him, but for the benefit of other readers who might be led astray by him.

Anonymous said...

Johnno,

Thank you for your post.

I nice article for your consideration of these matters is by Fr Peter Scott, SSPX, found here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2804

The Catholic encyclopedia also has a good article on "disciplinary infallibility"...

I am not a proponent of the SSPX, but that particular article above is sound.

It is necessary that Papal (universal) teaching be reliable in the present, (that is, in every age), at least as regards harm to souls (specifically salvation)...else, the Church defects and is not Divinely protected.

..from eminent theologian Van Noort:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (Auctorem Fidei)

Anyway, there are other Magisterial sources to support the same in addition to Auctorem Fidei. But this should suffice.

So, if Vox is right that Amoris L endorsed mortal sin, then Catholicism is in contradiction with itself.

St Columba

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas -

"Please don't lie about me. I asked about the bishops of Alberta. I don't know even know the name of one bishop of Alberta. I don't know whether they "lean left."

- Well, I believe you are lying. You are lying that you don't know because you needed to make a point that the Albertan Bishops could be considered Traditional, then by offering this perception you could then attempt to reinforce your continued campaign to make Amoris Letitia out to be 'orthodox' because a group of 'traditional-leaning' bishops merely said it. That's the game, that's your goal.


"Your blanket statement that "Canadian Bishops lean left", and that I am aware supposedly of that fact, is beyond my knowledge. I have said several times here that I don't know what the terms "conservative, liberal, and traditionalists" actually mean. We use them...but what do they mean?"

- You... don't... know... what the terms... 'conservative/liberal/traditional' mean...? I don't believe you. This is another of your attempts to shift the conversation off the rails. And if you, in a hypothetical universe, are really that ignorant about those labels and don't know how they apply within the context of Catholicism, then it's time you stopped posting here. This conversation is beyond your grasp of knowledge of current day events and issues. But I don't believe that, so nice try...


"Therefore, please don't tell me what I know supposedly about Canadian bishops — in particular, the bishops of Alberta, about whom I asked. I don't even know their names."

- You know what the nation of Canada holds as its values which are overwhelming liberal. You have been reading Vox's blog for awhile including the things he points out. Therefore you know which way voters swing. Therefore you need only make the same distinction about how Catholics vote. Therefore you know the answer to how the Church in Canada leans as a whole. I say you are lying because I don't believe you are dumb.



"Johnno, I can deal with the nasty digs and endless insults that you direct at me as they say far more about you than about me. But please don't lie about me."

- Everything I've said about you is the Truth based on my direct interactions with you and you know it. Everyone else who has read our conversations also knows that. You have engaged in deliberate slander of other Catholic men. You have engaged in deceptive tactics in your conversations. You have been called on it, and shown the proof. You have not recanted, you never respond, you never apologize, you run away and try try again. You deserve neither the benefits of the doubt nor soft charity. The things I say to you and the time I expend to say them are for the sake of others not to be led astray by you, to keep the conversation on topic, and also charity towards you, that somehow you will amend your ways, however hopeless that may seem. Sorry Mr. Lamb, but your horns are showing.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas in response to Michael Dowd -

"Either the Bishops of Alberta believe that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox or, as has been claimed here, they only pretend that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox simply to avoid a fight with Pope Francis.

How on earth am I being obtuse when the above has been claimed here today? That is plain and simple what has been said here today."

- You have aptly answered your own question. Why are you repeating yourself?

I don't believe you are obtuse. I believe you are in reality only pretending to be when you have succinctly summarized the reality. Well done! Your neat encapsulation of the Albertan Bishops situation to Michael Dowd demonstrates that you do in fact, get it. But you are framing this such that we should somehow not accept the reality you have neatly laid out for us.

What's the problem Mark? If you have sufficiently laid out the condition of the Albertan Bishops, then why then are you asking Vox to clarify their 'leanings'? The same for Burke.

You should not be asking Vox, or Michael or us these questions such as "how can an heretical document possibly be interpreted in the light of the Catholic faith?"

You should instead direct this very question to the Albertan Bishops and Cardinal Burke! We'd all love to know their answer!

But I'll tell you - Because they are afraid and are cowards in the face of the facts that Amoris Letitia contains heresy and that the Pope is promoting heresy. They know it. They don't know what to do, or rather don't know how to do it in any way that won't bring turmoil and schism to the Church. They are now uncomfortably finding themselves in the same Position as the SSPX.

And who could blame them? Such are the terrible times that are upon them. It's a major decision that I'm certain haunts them every night. But that is the reality.

Johnno said...

Now everyone, please pay attention to this post by Mark Thomas -

"Is a Canadian bishop who participates in an ecumenical event "liberal?" Is he "liberal" when he visits and worships in a Protestant church? Is he a traditional-leaning bishop suddenly when he says that the Bread and Wine during Mass become the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Is he a traditional-leaning bishop when he condemns abortion? I have noted many times that our Churchmen are, if there is any true understanding of said terms, liberal/traditional at once. His Holiness Pope Francis is a "traditional-leaning" Pope when he promotes the SSPX. He is a "liberal-leaning" Pope when he prayed at a mosque. Pope Benedict XVI was a "liberal-leaning" bishop when he praised the Arab Spring and prayed at a mosque. He was a "traditional-leaning" bishop when he issued Summorum Pontificum."

- Oh boy! Now everyone else, ask yourselves... is Mark Thomas being serious? Or is this a lame attempt to shift the conversation into explaining things that should be elementary? Things that are merely a dmeonstration of fallen human nature where your average man can indeed do inconsistent things?

Let me simply highlight the absurdity of Mark Thomas feigning of ignorance -

"Is an American who participates in democracy a "liberal"? Is he "liberal" when he visits a rally and votes for a Democrat candidate? Is he a Republican if he then turns around and says that Capatalism and securing our borders is a good thing? Is he a Republican if he thinks Abortion is bad? I have noted many times that Americans can hold liberal/conservative/libertarian views at once. So is an American, conservative-leaning if he wants to cut taxes, but is liberal leaning if he wants gay marriage? I had a friend who was liberal when thinking Islam is a religion of peace and we should accept more Islamic refugees, but was conservative by saying we should screen them for radicalized beliefs."

How is Vox supposed to answer this observation that is OBVIOUSLY just a comment on human nature?!

It is a question designed to take Vox's attention away from the topic at hand into more esoteric areas. It is a RED HERRING!

CONTD>

Johnno said...

CONTD>

Mark Thomas is attempting to get Vox to do what one essentially cannot, judge the soul of the Albertan Bishops individually and draft up an all-encapsulating label for them by comparing and weighing every action of theirs as if on a scale and see which side the weights fall upon.

Who cares? This is about Amoris Letitia, and their action in the moment. Right now the Albertan Bishops have stood up for the right side - not abusing the Eucharist and putting condemnation on unworthy recipients and causing scandal. This action was done in OPPOSITION to Francis, whom Mark Thomas goes to lengths to shield from criticism. But Mark Thomas is attempting to salvage Francis by making an appeal to the fact that the Albertan Bishops have also not chosen to condemn Amoris Letitia as a whole. He wants Vox to see things his way too, therefore he wants Vox to pick a label for the Albertan Bishops.

Mark Thomas is laying a trap, as the Pharisees tried with Christ. Traditional acceptance of Jewish sentiments against the Roman occupiers? Or siding with the occupiers against the Jewish people?

If Vox says they are Conservative/Traditional-leaning because they did not give into Francis' error, then Mark will move to impress upon Vox that accepting Amoris Letitia can be considered 'Traditional' because con/trad bishops have said it. If Vox says they lean liberal, then Mark Thomas will argue that if even liberal bishops can read Amoris Letitia in an orthodox way, then why is there a problem with Amoris Letitia?

But it's the same answer Christ gave. Render unto God the things that are His. There is NO liberal/conservative side in Catholicism. You either accept all the Faith consistently, or you don't. Amoris Letitia either speaks the truth, or it speaks lies.

CONTD>

Johnno said...

CONTD>

Pope Francis is wrong. Amoris Letitia is erroneous. The Albertan Bishops have acted inconsistently because they are being like democratic voters instead of Catholic Bishops. And thus they have ingored the Catholic Position to settle for the 'lesser of evils.' Keep the document and Pope in place, but don't accept what they say, in order to avoid a confrontation. What is truth? Let's maintain unity! They have accepted Ostpolitik and diplomacy. Give a little. Get a little. Hope things somehow turn out alright.

The inconsistency that Mark Thomas rightly pointed out is precisely the problem with the Churchmen today. They are Liberal/Conservative/Traditional WHEN THE SITUATION MAKES IT CONVENIENT FOR THEM TO BE SO! Just like American voters, they COMPROMISE!

The Albertan Bishops picked the 'conservative' interpretation this time, but still accept the 'liberal' document. They did something inconsistent. Mark Thomas knows that they did. Mark Thomas demonstrates this understanding in his spiel above about people doing inconsistent things. He claims to want to know which side the Albertan bishops lean, and depending on the answer Vox picks, he will attempt to trap Vox. Mark Thomas knows that the Albertan Bishops are either obtuse or lying. Funny how the possibility of obtuseness doesn't enter his explanation for the Albertan Bishops' decision to maintain Amoris. Just like American voters who may hold inconsistent positions because they actually haven't thought about the positions thoroughly.

Why didn't Mark Thomas not offer this alternative, gentler explanation of the Albertan Bishops' position to Michael Dowd? After all, it is more plausible than outright deliberate lying considering their handling of Amoris is not so far a stretch from interpreting Vatican II, and a Vatican II theology that no doubt many of them have been receiving instruction from since the seminary. That's because Mark Thomas' wanted a loaded question so that Michael Dowd, Vox and the rest of us would either see the idea of the Albertan Bishops as liars being so unacceptable, that we would be emotionally persuaded to reject it and therefore side with comment-from-authority that Amoris Letitia be 'orthodox' which is Mark's goal, when in reality the idea of diabolical disorientation still holds for the Albertan Bishops, or the simple complication that they are pressured and afraid form going too far under duress. Or themselves are playing the same tactics as the modernists tend to do, and that being touched by modernism themselves have no trouble using sophistry and platitudes to keep Amoris but do things other than what the text says, the same as they do when it comes to ecumenism and being nice about Islam, and pitying homosexuality.

But I personally have no problem accepting that they are deceptively lying or imagining they are taking advantage of ambiguity. Just remind yourselves that men in these positions covered up sexual abuse for decades. So running circles around Amoris Letitia is far easier to get away with. They've had plenty of practice with Vatican II.

Johnno said...

I would also like to add the hilarious end-note, that despite all Mark Thomas' understanding that Bishops, like human beings can be inconsistent, saying and doing different things, Mark Thomas is blissfully ignoring that the EXACT SAME THING is APPLICABLE to Pope Francis!

Maybe it's time he stopped quoting Francis and other things people claim about him which change from traditional>conservative>liberal>Heretical based on the weather at the moment.

Mark Thomas essentially in trying to trap Vox, has undermined his entire foundation of defense on Pope Francis' behalf.

Save his quote, and copy and paste it into any future discussion, to remind him of it whenever he shows up. I know I will.

Anonymous said...

There's still the matter of the Winnipeg statement that needs to be repented for and replaced with orthodox teaching. This is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
Bro Anthony

Michael Dowd said...

Let us summarize this entire affair.

---Vox provides succinct statement and assessment of situation.

---Most correspondents provide short concurrences.

---Mark Thomas begs to disagree in many more words than Vox's original statement.

---Others launch into Mark for his failures at fact and logic in a like number of words.

----Mark responds with enormous prolixity. Overwhelming prolixity being his primary
weapon.

---Others engage in similar overwhelming word play.

---Such "discussion" continues until Vox shuts it off. Vox is a man of great patience and charity.

---Visitors to blog decide to only read what Vox has to say.

A Daughter of Mary said...

Hi Vox, great blog and I love it that you are Canadian, from Toronto no less. A voice crying out in the wilderness that is Canada.

I just popped in and read the above back and forth with this Mark Thomas person. I should not tell you what to do with your own blog BUT can I just say that allowing this kind of nonsense to run on and on spoils some of the good work you do, and some of the interesting comments you receive?

Nothing useful is said when comments react to Mr. Thomas' long, long screeds of complaint and 'he said/she said.'

If you don't want to ban Mr. Thomas, could you not step in and end the very long comments once they have exhausted the topic?
Barbara

Vox Cantoris said...

Dear Barbara,

Welcome to Vox.

You can be assured, no more of it will be tolerated.

Vox

gtaylor said...

Pope Francis, is simply a very bad, arrogant, bully of an old man. He is rigidly holding to his 70/80's "formation" - and arrogance and pride moves him forward with his verbal garbage and bile, his agenda is there for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear........"most Catholic marriages are null and void"....need I list more of the public garbage of this arrogant old bad priests mouth????

His outrageous blatant manipulation of the synod on the "family", this pope will be recorded in history as one of the worst.

Some useless fools are blethering on about the popes garbage - chapter 8 of AL and , oh my! we contradict the truth of gates of hell will not prevail. Shut up already. The truth is, Pope Francis is a bad pope, not to be trusted and not to be followed when he pontificates garbage. That doesn't contradict the teaching of the Church. It is the teaching of the Church!

Michael Dowd said...

gtaylor;

Well said. What took you so long? It has been two months since first published.