Adore God, and Him alone!
Father Bergoglio does not genuflect at Mass,
but he grovels to wash the feet of man.
In his letter to the Kasperian, Vincenzo
Paglia, on his appointment to the new dicastery, Bergoglio writes:
“To kneel before the wounds of the human person, in order to understand them, care for them and heal them, is the duty of a Church that trusts in the light and the strength of the risen Christ,”
More nonsense emanating form the mind and mouth of this man we call Pope!
And more diabolical disorientation from this Paglia, who, according to Crux:
Along with writings of Pope Francis and other Vatican initiatives, Archbishop Vicenzo Paglia told the United Nations on Thursday that thanks to 'phenomena like the media production “Modern Family,”’ or same-sex marriage initiatives in a significant number of jurisdictions, the family has become the subject of increasingly intense interest and discussion.”
Let us ask the question.
Is Vincenzo Paglia a homosexual?
Earlier today, in Rome, Father Bergoglio, its Bishop also said:
Earlier today, in Rome, Father Bergoglio, its Bishop also said:
“He shows them that the few loaves and fishes they have, with the power of faith and of prayer, can be shared by all the people,” the Pope said. “It is a miracle that he does, but it is the miracle of faith, of prayer with compassion and love.”
He has said this before as some of us will recall, four times, at least, according to Oakes Spalding at Mahound's Paradise.
Pure, unadulterated, insanity and heresy. The fish and loaves were multiplied miraculously by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It was not through "sharing."
An unacceptable statement by Bergoglio
An unacceptable appointment by the Bishop of Rome intent on "making a mess" and creating "chaos." Yes, "order out of chaos" the motto of a 33rd Degree Freemason.
No, we do not kneel before the wounds of man, we kneel to God and HIs wounds. We comfort our neighbour, we tend to his wounds, we aid the best we can but we kneel to God and Him alone, Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
38 comments:
In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, we don't kneel in church from Pascha to Pentecost inclusive.
Otherwise, the only time I don't kneel in church is after I get my chiropractic adjustment on the second Saturday of each month. My priest is OK with that.
The complete Apostasy of the CC will occur very soon now which in itself is good as we believe that Our Lady's Triumph is also close to hand. Keep the True Faith - Bergoglio & coterie have lost it long ago.
I trust everyone is praying the Rosary Novena asked for by Cardinal Burke.
Yeah...... this pope, and the silence of the hierarchy, has got me thoroughly discouraged and demoralized.
Very well said Vox!
"But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting."
(Excerpt from Notre Charge Apostolique by Pope Saint Pius X.)
"Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity--and perfect charity.
It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.
The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence, the love due to a man, inasmuch as he is our neighbor, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin."
(Charity. Liberalism is a Sin by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany. Ch. 19.)
Dan,
"Be not afraid!"
We were born for this.
Vox...in regard to the link to Oakes Spalding: Oakes Spalding said:
"This was at least the fourth time he's publicly made this claim as Pope...Francis is denying that the miracle, in the sense that we usually understand the meaning of the term "miracle," ever happened."
Oakes Spalding's statement, that His Holiness Pope Francis rejected the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, is false. But in keeping with CCC #2478, I give Oakes Spalding the benefit of the doubt in that his error is an honest mistake.
Oakes Spalding must be unfamiliar with the following:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130605_udienza-generale.html
Pope Francis, General Audience, June 5, 2013 A.D:
"A few days ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish."
-- Pope Francis identified the multiplication as a miracle.
-- Pope Francis made it clear that Jesus Christ, without question, had fed the multitude, via the miracle of multiplication, with five loaves and two fish.
-- Pope Francis made it very clear that the miracle is linked to the act of multiplication, rather than the simple act of sharing.
Pope Francis promoted, rather than have denied, the miracle in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Well no Mark, Bergoglio did not make it "very clear", that's why Vox has this post.
The theology of the past 100 years has denied miracles. Most theologians are/were Jesuits. Theologians and many bishops have long stopped believing in the resurrection of the body or the Assumption.
Why do you suppose these things... Marian holy days, and homilies, retreats, art, music, rosary, missalettes, adoration, prayers... have been very gradually modified or entirely phased out?
This began long before Vatican II, folks. You are only now finding out, but most katholics have drunk the kool-aid in their baby bottles and are essentially protestants. Our Jesuit pope is basically a protestant himself.
Just for kicks, let me share with you a quote from the fundraising letter I received today from the Jesuit province:
"Imagine a world today with no Jesuits, no one to pick up the mantle for Jesuit education, justice, fairness, Ignatian spirituality, and social conscience. No one to stand for the poor and marginalized. No one to work in those places of the world where others turn their backs."
This is the definition of the new church, the katholic church, not merely the Jesuit order. Nothing about salvation, sanctity, beauty, truth, glory, sacrifice (except your money), transcendence, the metaphysical.
The middle ages are dead, Aquinas is vilified, the family is defined as any group of weirdos who happen to "love" one another at the moment... and "Christendom is dead" (as recently proclaimed by a famous Cardinal).
Jesuit values are aligned completely with the post-modern values of the developed world. The Church fully intends to keep itself 'relevant' and thriving in this brave new world. Those not with the program truly are a small 'remnant' who will be increasingly humiliated and persecuted.
JayBee, any chance of getting a JPEG of that letter to voxcantoris@rogers.com
our peronist jovinian gnostic can spout denials of the gospels and absolute truth all he wants, we will kneel only to the man-god Jesus Christ, our beliefs will only be orthodox, we will never yield to bergogism! his fate in history will be the same as honorius.
Typical of modernist heretics, Bergoglio talks out of both sides of his mouth:
Pope Francis, General Audience, JUNE 5, 2013 A.D:
"A few days ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the account of THE MIRACLE OF THE MULTIPLICATION of the loaves. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish."
(https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130605_udienza-generale.html)
-- Pope Francis identified the multiplication as a MIRACLE.
(He caught Mark with this one! :))
Pope Francis, General Audience, JUNE 2, 2013 A.D:
[Jesus] "tells his disciples to have the people sit down in groups of 50 — this is not merely coincidental, for it means that they are no longer a crowd but become communities nourished by God’s bread. Jesus then takes those loaves and fish, looks up to heaven, recites the blessing — the reference to the Eucharist is clear — and breaks them and gives them to the disciples who distribute them... and the loaves and fish do not run out, they do not run out! This is the miracle: RATHER THAN A MULTIPLICATION IT IS A SHARING, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
(http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/angelus/2013/documents/papa-francesco_angelus_20130602.html)
-- Pope Francis identified the miracle NOT as a miracle, but as a SHARING!
Must have been microscopic helpings Jorge! Thousands sated and then 12 baskets left over! I mean, no way the 2 loaves and 5 fish could have filled all them baskets to begin with. As I remember my school physics, "matter can neither be destroyed, nor created." So, you can share and share and the bits keep getting smaller, until there none left! I seriously suspect you talking poppycock again Jorge. ;)
Well, yes, Anonymous, during his June 5, 2013 A.D. General Audience, His Holiness Pope Francis made three things clear in regard to Oaks Spalding' claim in question.
1. Pope Francis made it clear that the multiplication was a miracle.
2. Pope Francis made it clear that Jesus Christ had fed the multitude, via the miracle of multiplication, with five loaves and two fish.
3. Pope Francis linked the miracle to the act of multiplication, rather than the act of sharing.
Vox "had this post" due to Oakes Spalding's unfamiliarity (I guess that that is the case) with Pope Francis June 5, 2013 A.D. General Audience.
Had Oakes Spalding been aware of that General Audience, then Vox would not have "had this post" (about Spalding) as Oakes Spalding would not have posted the false claim in question.
Oakes Spalding made a mistake. Pope Francis' understanding of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes is 100 percent Catholic. Pope Francis made that clear on June 5, 2013 A.D.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Many priests no longer genuflect before the Holy Eucharist; the new rite of Mass encourages this. I can see only two possible reasons: either an immense pride which makes us treat God as if we were His equals, or else the certitude that He is not really present in the Eucharist."
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Oops!
So Peter Lamb just made up the preceding quote of Francis out of thin air Mark? He explicitly said the Miracle was sharing, RATHER THAN multiplication.
MARK THOMAS - DECEPTIVELY QUOTING POPE FRANCIS OUT OF CONTEXT!
Visit the very link he provided! Here's the full statement.
"A few days ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish. And the end of this passage is important: “and all ate and were satisfied. And they took up what was left over, twelve baskets of broken pieces (Lk 9:17). Jesus asked the disciples to ensure that nothing was wasted: nothing thrown out! And there is this fact of 12 baskets: why 12? What does it mean? Twelve is the number of the tribes of Israel, it represents symbolically the whole people. And this tells us that when the food was shared fairly, with solidarity, no one was deprived of what he needed, every community could meet the needs of its poorest members. Human and environmental ecology go hand in hand."
In factr, go read it all within the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the document, Pope Francis is discussing environmental and worldly matters.
That Pope Francis refers to "the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves" is about as as much proof of evidence of belief if I were to say Atheist Christopher Dawkins saying "I read the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves..."
Therefore is Pope Francis or Dawkins actually emphasizing that this was a genuine miracle? Or are Pope Francis and the hypothetical Dawkins quote or referring at face value that the passage they read is about the alleged "account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves?"
Pope Francis obviously doesn't think so because he then proceeds to reinterpret the entire passage in worldly terms to refer to "sharingy" "solidarity" "no one was deprived" "community" "poorest members" "Human" "environmental ecology" etc. as is the entire theme of the June 5th General Audience!
One may easily make reference to the "Account of the Birth of Venus" to make a point about romance, or beauty emerging from chaos. Doesn't necessarily mean that one referencing the account necessarily BELIEVES in the Birth of Venus!
Mark Thomas however, tried to make it seem as if Francis believes in the Account merely for stating that he was referencing it, then Mark Thomas cut out the remainder of the quote in order to decontextualize it in a poor attempt to try and defend Pope Francis, who is on record downplaying the miracle, just as he did AGAIN in the June 5th Audience to emphasize environmentalism and Socialism!
If someone wants to see a tsunami and call it a ripple, I guess they are entitled. The pope has made himself clear again and again and again how he sees things. Some see a tsunami and others that ripple. It's clear enough to anyone with eyes to see.
And Dan, hang in there friend. We have each other and, this will not go on forever, though it may seem to. Think of the merit you are building up by persevering in faith during such trying times. Stick to the old faith no matter what. :)
Thanks Vox for picking up on Pope Francis latest outrage against Catholic truth. And kudos to all the commenters, especially JayBee, who were excellent with one unmentionable exception who may be under obedience to Opus Dei as is, evidently, Michael Voris.
Vox said..."And more diabolical disorientation from this Paglia, who, according to Crux:"
Vox, what is wrong with Archbishop Paglia's statement that due to the "phenomena like the media production “Modern Family,”’ or same-sex marriage initiatives in a significant number of jurisdictions, the family has become the subject of increasingly intense interest and discussion."
Vox, Archbishop Paglia is correct. He stated simple facts. Powerful media forces who promote such enterprises as "Modern Family" have intensified dramatically the discussion that is related to the family.
The promotion of same-sex marriage initiatives have intensified the discussion related to the family.
What did Archbishop Paglia say that was wrong? Again, he stated simple facts. Powerful forces via the media and sodomite "marriage" initiatives have intensified discussions related to the family. That is just a fact. Why shouldn't Archbishop Paglia note that fact?
Archbishop Paglia has time and again reiterated that the "traditional" and "normal" (he used those words) family is male-female-children. Archbishop Paglia has declared publicly his support for bishops who denounce laws that would legalize sodomite unions.
During his 2014 A.D. address to the United Nations on International Day of the Family, Archbishop Paglia three times declared that family is “male/female” and “parent/child.”
Archbishop Paglia also declared that day to the United Nations that "that human life is sacred and inviolable from conception to its natural ending, and the second is that protection of the family is an essential element of any sustainable economic or social development, particularly as regards societal opposition to an “economy of exclusion,” a “throw-away culture” and a “culture of death.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox said..."And more diabolical disorientation from this Paglia, who, according to Crux:"
Vox, what is wrong with Archbishop Paglia's statement that due to the "phenomena like the media production “Modern Family,”’ or same-sex marriage initiatives in a significant number of jurisdictions, the family has become the subject of increasingly intense interest and discussion."
Vox, Archbishop Paglia is correct. He stated simple facts. Powerful media forces who promote such enterprises as "Modern Family" have intensified dramatically the discussion that is related to the family.
The promotion of same-sex marriage initiatives have intensified the discussion related to the family.
What did Archbishop Paglia say that was wrong? Again, he stated simple facts. Powerful forces via the media and sodomite "marriage" initiatives have intensified discussions related to the family. That is just a fact. Why shouldn't Archbishop Paglia note that fact?
Archbishop Paglia has time and again reiterated that the "traditional" and "normal" (he used those words) family is male-female-children. Archbishop Paglia has declared publicly his support for bishops who denounce laws that would legalize sodomite unions.
During his 2014 A.D. address to the United Nations on International Day of the Family, Archbishop Paglia three times declared that family is “male/female” and “parent/child.”
Archbishop Paglia also declared that day to the United Nations that "that human life is sacred and inviolable from conception to its natural ending, and the second is that protection of the family is an essential element of any sustainable economic or social development, particularly as regards societal opposition to an “economy of exclusion,” a “throw-away culture” and a “culture of death.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous Johnno said..."MARK THOMAS - DECEPTIVELY QUOTING POPE FRANCIS OUT OF CONTEXT!"
Is a sentence in all-caps internetspeak for shouting? Wow, all-capitalized...
Anyway, Johnno, on June 5, 2013 A.D., His Holiness Pope Francis noted that the multiplication was a miracle, Jesus Christ had fed the multitude, via the miracle of multiplication, with five loaves and two fish, and that the miracle pertained to the act of multiplication, rather than the act of sharing.
That is what His Holiness Pope Francis noted.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Lamb said..."Typical of modernist heretics, Bergoglio talks out of both sides of his mouth: Pope Francis, General Audience, JUNE 5, 2013 A.D: Pope Francis, General Audience, JUNE 2, 2013 A.D:"
Peter, His Holiness Pope Francis didn't talk "out of both sides of his mouth." Pope Francis has spoken publicly several times about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Pope Francis has brought out aspects related to Jesus' Feeding the multitude.
Why would that entail the idea that Pope had talked out of both sides of his mouth?
On June 5, 2014 A.D., Pope Francis noted that the multiplication was a miracle...Jesus Christ fed the multitude...the miracle was the act of multiplication, rather than the act of sharing.
What is the problem?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous said..."So Peter Lamb just made up the preceding quote of Francis out of thin air Mark? He explicitly said the Miracle was sharing, RATHER THAN multiplication."
Did I make up the quote of His Holiness Pope Francis, in which he identified the miracle as that of multiplication?
Now, who said that Peter Lamb invented a quote? Pope Francis, as an authorized teacher of the People of God, has expounded at times upon the miracle in question. It is that simple. On June 5, 2013 A.D., Pope Francis noted that the miracle is rooted in the multiplication that Jesus Christ performed. Therefore, what is the problem in regard to Pope Francis' comments in question?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
What is awful is the spectacle of a Bishop of the Catholic Church referring matter-of-factly to a cheap, salacious production which promots every sort of vice, natural and unnatural. This is scandal.
You can call it whatever you like but one thing is clear: it is not Catholic.
Dear Mark, No point in flogging this horse to death.
On 2 June 2013 Bergoglio said:
"This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a SHARING, inspired by faith and prayer."
On 5 June 2013 Bergoglio said:
"... we read the account of the miracle of the MULTIPLICATION of the loaves. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish."
That's what Bergoglio said! On June the 2nd it was a miraculous multiplication. To feed thousands and then have 12 baskets of left overs, from 2 fish and 5 loaves, was truly miraculous and not possible by the laws of nature (physics).
On June 5th, Bergoglio said that it was a simple sharing of the fish and loaves to accomplish the same results - which is impossible. There is nothing miraculous about people sharing their food, if they so wish. However, it is impossible for thousands of people to be sated from 2 fish and 5 loaves. On this occasion Bergoglio denies the miracle and Holy Scripture = another heresy.
He contradicts himself over a period of 3 days! Those are the facts!
If that's not speaking out of both sides of his mouth, what is?
There is nothing new, or surprising in his duplicity - this is old modernist practice:
"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.)
MARK THOMAS - A MAN WITH NO CREDIBILITY WHO DELIBERATELY ENGAGES IN :
- DECEPTIVE QUOTATION
By never quoting Pope Francis in full and selectively eliminating the Pope's own words to make his false point.
- DECEPTIVE DECONTEXTUALIZATION
By removing Pope Francis' quotes and severing them from an intentional context and reinterpreting them to mean whatever Mark Thomas prefers them to mean. And also ignoring other occasions where Pope Francis addresses the same subject matter.
- HYPERLITERALISM
A perfect example being his constant referral to the June 5th address where Pope Francis merely noted the ACCOUNT of the Miracle. And Mark Thomas uses that as his ENTIRE argument to justify that Pope Francis believes in the miracle, despite every other context, even within the address itself! But Mark Thomas is choosy about when he gets to apply this faulty reasoning. Today, Pope Francis fully means the Miracle just by naming it. But yesterday, and tomorrow Mark Thomas will still be insisting that Pope Francis didn't really mean "There is no CATHOLIC God" when he talked to Scalfari, and then published the interviews through the Vatican's press arm.
- DIVERSIONARY TACTICS & DERAILMENT
By veering off course into other topics or needling into other points or statements that are besides the point. Notice the following: "Is a sentence in all-caps internetspeak for shouting? Wow, all-capitalized..." YES I AM USING CAPS in order to catch the attention of anyone scrolling through the comments so that they are not taken in by Mark Thomas' falsehoods.
- FAILURE TO STATE
By constantly asking questions and veering off into other statements and topics, Mark Thomas avoids having to defend his position and his blatant errors. In fact he has outright refused to respond to many things others bring up.
MARK THOMAS - A MAN WITH NO CREDIBILITY WHO DELIBERATELY ENGAGES IN : (Continued)
- FEIGNING IGNORANCE & INNOCENCE
When caught, Mark Thomas will attempt to deflect and claim he doesn't know what you are talking about, and will instead accuse you of being misleading about him, or instead go on the offensive against you or how you may type something in ALL CAPS instead of addressing your point.
- LEAST PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS
Mark Thomas has already made up his mind about the character of the Pope, despite all reality and context to the contrary. His explanation is the only plausible one to him to the contrary of every other reasonable explanation that takes account of the entirety of Pope Francis' reign. Occam's Razor never interferes with Mark Thomas's stubborn worldview. He is not here to engage in rational discussion. He is here to propagate his and ONLY his tunnel vision. He will go to lengths using all of the above to engage in this.
- READING FRANCIS THROUGH MARK THOMAS
Fr. Z would love this one. Note in Mark Thomas' response to me where he says "His Holiness Pope Francis noted that the multiplication was a miracle, Jesus Christ had fed the multitude, via the miracle of multiplication, with five loaves and two fish, and that the miracle pertained to the act of multiplication, rather than the act of sharing. That is what His Holiness Pope Francis noted."
Except none of this is anywhere in the address. Pope Francis only noted that "we read the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves." And then goes on to explain the details. Nowhere does he emphasize the miraculous nature of the event as a reality. He takes the account at face value as one may take thea ccount of the Birth of Venus at face value and then expound on it's details to drive home a point. In which case Francis' point is "this tells us that when the food was shared fairly, with solidarity, no one was deprived of what he needed, every community could meet the needs of its poorest members. Human and environmental ecology go hand in hand."
This has been Mark Thomas putting Mark Thomas' words in Pope Francis' mouth. It's nowhere in the address of June 5th. Nowhere does Pope Francis 'note' the miraculous nature of the event other than to refer to it and then reinterpret it to a more socialist understanding. Therefore none of this is any kind of proof that Francis believe in the miracle anymore than Francis believes in the Book of Genesis or that Eve was created from Adam. But at the very top of the address Francis refers to Genesis and only takes from it the duty of man to cultivate the Earth. Francis therefore takes whatever he likes from inerrant Scripture without necessarily believing the account as being factual history.
MARK THOMAS
Another fine example of his misdirection so as to not address the topic, Mark Thomas directs this question at Vox:
"Vox, what is wrong with Archbishop Paglia's statement that due to the "phenomena like the media production “Modern Family,”’ or same-sex marriage initiatives in a significant number of jurisdictions, the family has become the subject of increasingly intense interest and discussion."
This is because Mark Thomas either didn't read the link Vox provided to know the context or he has instead engaged in 'Changing the Subject' so as to avoid discussing the actual point Vox brings up. Perhaps Mark Thomas can go read the link where Paglia's context for the quote is fully provided.
When Paglia is making reference to the media, he means it in THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE WAY of Mark Thomas' FALSE context!
PAGLIA is in fact referring to the media's attention to this topic as a POSITIVE, in that it has brought about Pope Francis' writings and the Vatican's attention to this topic in order that I QUOTE PAGLIA: "The doctrine can be enlarged, can be deepened." MODERNIST CODE WORDS that mean to leave the words of doctrine on paper unchanged by reinterpret them in order to change practice about these 'modern families' aka adulterers and sodomites.
This is Paglia REFUSED to answer Raymond Arroyo's question as to whether Paglia himself approved of the show 'Modern Family' but instead deflected that I QUOTE Paglia: "This is not the heart of the question."
So Mark Thomas' ENTIRE SPIEL about "Powerful forces via the media and sodomite "marriage" initiatives have intensified discussions related to the family" and this being what Paglia was referring to is ENTIRELY FALSE! Mark Thomas MADE IT UP ENTIRELY! AND PUT MARK THOMAS' SPIN IN PAGLIA'S MOUTH! But it's NOT what Paglia is talking about at all! The context of the quote by Paglia is that he sees the media as useful and driving Paglia's historical desire for laxity in Church discipline!
If Mark Thomas wants us to hilariously reinterpret it as "Why shouldn't Archbishop Paglia note that fact?" (Media's narrative of marriage exists that Paglia NOTES as fact, but doesn't personally subscribe to, yet draws benefit from to discuss). But then Mark Thomas should be asked the same question - "Why shouldn't Pope Francis note that fact?" (An account of a miracle of multiplication exists that Francis notes, but doesn't personally subscribe to, yet draws benefit from to discuss)?.
Perhaps Mark Thomas would like to address this, hmmmm...?
Peter Lamb,
We disagree about the issue at hand. We disagree..then move on to discuss the next manufactured "controversy" related to His Holiness Pope Francis. Do not worry. About every, oh, couple of minutes, a "controversy" related to Pope Francis will be contrived.
That is what Oakes Spalding did in regard to Pope Francis and the miracle of the loaves and fishes.
I realize that His Holiness Pope Francis has said this and that in regard to the issue at hand. That is the result of his having expounded upon the miracle in question. His having discussed several aspects related to the miracle doesn't mean that he talked out of both sides of his mouth.
On June 5, 2013 A.D., Pope Francis recognized the miracle in question and noted that the miracle is related to multiplication, not sharing.
But we disagree about that. That is that.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Johnno, you didn't catch me in anything. I didn't place words in Pope Francis' mouth. Now, to return to that which is important.
Topic: Oakes Spalding declared that "Pope Francis claimed that the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was really about sharing."
Now, as to the validity of that claim...
Wow! I wish that I had utilized the following yesterday. I just read the following in the National Catholic Register, where Jimmy Akin, who is billions of times more intelligent and articulate than I, presented the following undeniable facts:
8) What about the sharing theory? In his Angelus, Pope Francis said:
"The Gospel presents to us the account of the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves (Lk 9:11-17); I would like to reflect on one aspect of it that never fails to impress me and makes me think." (Pope Francis described the miracle, then said)...
"This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer."
-------------------------------------------
To return to Jimmy Akin:
"So Pope Francis calls this a “miracle.” He then says that “from this small amount, God can make it suffice for everyone” because “for him everything is possible.”
He then says Jesus has “those loaves and fish” distributed, and as the disciples do so “the loaves and fish do not run out.” He even repeats it emphatically: “They do not run out!” He does not say that they were supplemented by food people had under their clothes (who does that, anyway?). He says that the five loaves and two fish do not run out."
9) What does he mean by saying that the miracle was one of sharing rather than multiplication?
"First of all, note that he does call it a miracle involving multiplication. He refers to it as “the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves.”
"This tells us that he may not be denying the multiplication when he stresses sharing but is instead stressing a particular aspect of the event.
10) "Is there other evidence that confirms this view? Indeed, there is. Already in his May homily, Pope Francis had stated:
Where does the multiplication of the loaves come from? The answer lies in Jesus’ request to the disciples: “You give them…”, “to give”, to share. What do the disciples share? The little they have: five loaves and two fish. However it is those very loaves and fish in the Lord's hands that feed the entire crowd.
Notice his emphasis on the Apostles giving (“You give them,” “to give,” to share). He then asks “What do the disciples share?”
This indicates that, when he thinks of sharing in terms of this narrative, he’s thinking of the Apostles sharing, not the crowd, in confirmation of the point I made above.
Further, he says “It is those very loaves and fish in the Lord’s hands that feed the entire crowd.” And that “the loaves and fish . . . satisfy the crowd.”
It couldn’t get much plainer than that: This is a miracle, and not one of the crowd sharing among itself."
=========================================================================
11) Can it be clearer? Actually, yes. In his June general audience (just a few days after the Sunday Angelus), he stated:
"A few days ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish."
Note that he again calls it “the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves” and states frankly that “Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish.”
That’s quite clear. This was a miracle of multiplication, not just an inspirational act of natural sharing by the hoarders in the crowd.
===========================================================
Oakes Spalding is wrong. Perhaps the above information will reach him so that he can apologize publicly for the false claim that he promoted against His Holiness Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
No Mark, we agree on what Bergoglio said on 5 June. You refuse to even acknowledge what he said on June 2, in complete contradiction to June 5.
Johnno, thank you for responding and explaining so well the reality here, that everyone else on the blog realizes but one. I myself have lost the patience by now to waste time dealing with someone who obstinately refuses to see reality, which no amount of quotes and essay-length replies convince anyone else. These constant arguments that we are all somehow wrong and and aren't seeing what's right in front of us are frankly ruining every single one of Vox's posts. At this point it is just ridiculous. Johnno and Peter speak for most of us here who have had enough of the combox nonsense.
That Mark Thomas must rely on Jimmy Akin to back himself up is doubly amusing. Next he'll be quoting Mark Shea.
Marks' entire point, which he runs away from addressing anything I said, is summed up that Pope Francis refers to 'the account of the miracle.' Which in no way verifies that he actually believes the account other than to explain and interpret it according to a socialist understanding.
It's as if Mark Thomas and Jimmy Akin, an ex-Protestant who should know better aren't aware of an entire school of thought that merely reads the Biblical miracles as fables but draw moral lessons from.
For example, when Christ says "This is My Body, This is My Blood", many others take it to mean a symbolic thing, other than the Catholic understanding of Transubstantiation.
Much like others who don't believe in the Resurrection draw inspiration from it yet these commentaries will still refer to it as the Account of the Miraculous Resurrection. Or who don't believe in the miraculous plagues against Egypt but still refer to the account of the plagues of Egypt. All it means is that they're referring to the account. And also repeating the details of the account - "rising from the dead" / "Nile turning to blood" / 'Angel of Death killing the First born' / 'five loves and fishes feeding the multitude.' So what? The proof lies in what they emphasize and in what they never emphasize. In this case - Socialism, and NEVER the miraculous power of God!
And interpreting the account of the multiplication for socialist means is not anything new! Many times the modernists have repeated what Francis again repeats. Heck even in children's catechism classes. God forbid children believe God creates miracles! That's outdated thinking! We live in a scientific world now! The backwards Gospel-writers, who we are told wrote these far after the times of Christ (hint/hint) obviously weren't as educated as we are now! So they just recorded exaggerations. but that's as Paglia says, "beyond the heart of the matter" we must take it as a lesson in sharing!
Yup! just as Mark Thomas says, "Now, to return to that which is important." Birds of a feather, Mark Thomas, Francis and Paglia. But at least Mark, from what he's desperately trying to spin in Francis' favor, believes in the multiplication, so he's got that going for him.
Odd then, that if one can hyperliterally interpret Francis' words as a positive from simply referring to the details of an account, that Mark Thomas for some reason can't accept that Francis' face-value words of there being "no Catholic God" or that "souls are annihilated" or for a Lutheran woman to "ask her conscience and go forward (to Catholic Holy Communion)" isn't what Francis explicitly said... What's Mark Thomas' criteria for this and not the other? Perhaps Jimmy Akin has something he can refer to...
Vox-permitting...Part 1 of 2
Peter Lamb,
Pope Francis said on June 2, 2013 A.D. that the "Gospel presents to us the account of the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves; I would like to reflect on one aspect of it that never fails to impress me and makes me think."
Pope Francis continued, then conclude with the following:
"This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
What is the context of the phrase "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing...?" Is Oakes Spalding's claim correct? No.
Oakes Spalding failed to report the context of the phrase "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing..."
As Jimmy Akin noted, the undeniable context of Pope Francis' remark was that "God accomplished the miracle through an act of sharing, but it wasn’t the crowd sharing the food it was hoarding. It was the Apostles sharing the five loaves and two fish.'
"When Jesus blessed the five loaves and two fish, God didn’t suddenly multiply them so that the Apostles were looking at a pile of 5,000 fish and 200 loaves, which they then set to work distributing.'
"Instead, the miracle happened as they were sharing what they had with the crowd. God didn’t multiply it all up front; he kept it from running out. Yes, there was a multiplication, but it was a multiplication that occurred as the Apostles distributed the tiny amount of food they had.
"So there was a real, physical miracle, but it was accomplished through an act of the Apostles sharing what was originally a tiny amount of food."
==================================================================
The context of the phrase "sharing" is undeniable as during a homily about the miracle, Pope Francis emphasized the following:
"A final element: *******where does the multiplication of the loaves come from?*******
"The answer lies in Jesus’ request to the disciples: *******“You give them…”, “to give”, to share.*******
"*******What do the disciples share?******* The little they have: five loaves and two fish. However *******it is those very loaves and fish in the Lord's hands that feed the entire crowd."*******
"And it is the disciples themselves, bewildered as they face the insufficiency of their means, the poverty of what they are able to make available, who get the people to sit down and who — trusting in Jesus’ words — distribute *******the loaves and fish that satisfy the crowd."*******
========================================================
As Jimmy Akin noted, Pope Francis' "emphasis on the Apostles giving (“You give them,” “to give,” to share). He then asks “What do the disciples share?”
"This indicates that, when he thinks of sharing in terms of this narrative, he’s thinking of the Apostles sharing, not the crowd, in confirmation of the point I made above.
"Further, he says “It is those very loaves and fish in the Lord’s hands that feed the entire crowd.” And that “the loaves and fish . . . satisfy the crowd.”
"It couldn’t get much plainer than that: This is a miracle, and not one of the crowd sharing among itself."
================================================================
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox-permitting...Part 2 of 2
Peter Lamb,
Finally, Jimmy Akin noted that during Pope Francis' June General Audience, His Holiness said that a "few days ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish.
"Note that he again calls it “the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves” and states frankly that “Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fish.”
"That’s quite clear. This was a miracle of multiplication, not just an inspirational act of natural sharing by the hoarders in the crowd."
======================================================================
Again, the above is the undeniable context of Pope Francis' comments in question. His comments were 100 percent orthodox.
Oakes Spalding failed to discern the context of Pope Francis' comments.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
every time I see a "Mark Thomas" at the top, I skip the whole comment. He's always trying o defend the undefendable. He seems so determined to believe what he wants to believe, even against all evidence on the contrary, it's kind of crazy. Blind faith is towards God, not people, even if they call themselves the Pope.
Marilyn
Mark Thomas, how much are they paying you?
Johnno said...
MARK THOMAS - A MAN WITH NO CREDIBILITY WHO DELIBERATELY ENGAGES IN :
Agree completely with Johnno. Reading Mark Thomas undermines the Catholic faith. Besides that, if that were not enough, is the prolixity of it all. For me, enough is enough.
Post a Comment