He knows his time is short and he's losing the minds of faithful Catholics. Therefore he will push forward with his ultimate agenda at break neck speed.
Today's First Reading: Reading 1 Sir 15:15-20 If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live; he has set before you fire and water to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God are on those who fear him; he understands man's every deed. No one does he command to act unjustly, to none does he give license to sin.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller Receives Sharp Criticism for His Recent Il Timone Interview http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardina...s-sharp-criticism-recent-il-timone-interview/
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2017/02/rorate-caeli-it-is-more-likely-than-not.html?m=1 Rorate Caeli: It is More Likely Than Not That Francis is a Formal Heretic All sorts of rumors are now swirling about current events in the Church: Cardinal Burke has been cancelling engagements. Why? Cardinal Muller has resigned from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Was he forced or was it voluntary? A formal correction of the Pope has already been made in private and is about to become public. The Pope and his allies are intending to radically revamp the Novus Ordo Mass to make it even more amenable to Protestants and others. And these come against the background of significant public events and incidents: The official and public endorsement of a heretical understanding of communion by various groups of bishops in Argentina, Malta and now Germany, based (they claim) on the Pope's recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The Pope has either confirmed their endorsements or maintained a favorable-seeming silence. The "annexation" of the Sovereign Order of Malta by the Vatican. The overnight appearance in Rome of posters critical of a sitting pope - something not seen since the era of the Papal States. A parody "attack" on the pope sent via email to Vatican officials. A seemingly coordinated attack on Cardinal Burke - now the Pope's most identifiable "opponent" - accusing him of being a right-wing extremist in league with the Trump administration and neo-Fascist Italian politicians. The attack has involved Pope Francis himself and various Vatican allies but has also bled over into the American secular press. A friend reminded me of this motto: Motus in fine velociorMotion accelerates when the end is near But what is the "end" in this case? The unprecedented (in modern times) suppression of four (or more) cardinals and thus a tightening of the grip of the Church of Mercy? Open schism? Or is it that the "end" will include the removal of a pope? As unthinkable as the last possibility may seem, more and more people, many inside the Church hierarchy and bureaucracy, are now privately talking about it. Even if it is mere wishful thinking, this has enormous significance. Today, Rorate Caeli, one of the leading traditionalist Catholic websites, published a long essay by Canadian-born philosopher John R.T. Lamont, addressing certain questions surrounding the meaning of "formal correction." While the positions taken in he article were not explicitly endorsed by the site, the post was not preceded by any disclaimers either, unlike other "controversial" articles they have published. Among other things, Lamont claims: In the light of the fact that Pope Francis has openly endorsed heretical understandings of Amoris laetitia in his letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Sept. 5th 2016, it is more likely than not that he is in fact a formal heretic.Why then have so few cardinals and bishops publicly lined up with the four "dubia cardinals" on this? Lamont argues that much of the reason stems from an absolutist understanding of "obedience," with roots in the philosophy of St. Ignatius Loyola and other 16th and 17th century Jesuits. But this understanding is erroneous and dangerous: The question of how anyone, even a cardinal, can correct the Pope is an important one. It is a basic principle of the divinely established constitution of the Church that the Pope judges all other Catholics on earth and is judged by none of them. But this constitution does not establish the Pope as an autocrat with tyrannical authority, who is answerable to no-one. The Pope's authority is a legal one, and as with all legal authority it involves duties to his subjects as well as rights over them. The duty to confess the Catholic faith is a fundamental duty of the papal office. His subjects may thus formally request and even require him to carry out this duty. The right to make such a formal request belongs to any Catholic, but the cardinals, whose office is to advise the Pope, have a strict duty as well as a right to make this request. The cardinals who have failed to do this are guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. This failure is a catastrophe that threatens to lead to the disintegration of most of the Church.Read the full article here. It should be noted that the anonymous Rorate author who introduces the piece, strongly rejects the truth of the rumor that the Pope has already been formally corrected. However, he does not explain why he believes this. We'll find out soon enough.
Brian, If this turn out to be true would Pope Francis be the first pope in this situation? I found the following article on ETWN, http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popeguil.htm . I was looking for a past situation so we could then reflect on what the future possibilities are in case this does happen. Edited to add: Here is a link which explains what was contained in the Dubia. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...er-to-pope-francis-with-explanatory-notes-and I am also curious if there is a proper name for the response from the Pope? I mean would he be writing them a letter to answer the dubia or is there a formal name for his response? Thank you.
I know there has been at least one pope in pre-Medieval times who was accused of heresy and actually brought before a commission before he renounced his heretical teachings. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to bring up the details.
Muzhik, Thank you, I would appreciate it when you do have the time. The only thing that I have read so far is that some popes were considered to be heretics but were never formally excused of such but I would not have asked the question if I was certain about this. I pray that this does not happen, none of this is good for the church. On my second point wondering what the next step for the pope is, I read an article from the end of November in which it states that the pope feels that the Dubia was answered already. He believes that all of this was discussed at the synod, if this is true, then it explains why the author of this booklet did not present. If speculation (rumor) was made that he would be presenting the pope's answer to the Dubia and this was not the case, then he did not speak for obvious reasons. We need patience and prayer to see us through this.
Now you're posting unfounded rumors, as a moderator no less, on a Catholic forum? From Twitter no less? This is gossip. Gossip, especially when conducted in an effort to undermine the credibility of someone (especially our Church and it's Pope) is a sin, is it not? Goodness I better head back to my beads and this reflection from Monsignor Pope is wise for all of us to read, me first before I say anything else, heaven help us! https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/a-reflection-on-the-sin-of-gossip/
I've got a HOT rumor for Ya! Considering today's "Front Page" National & International News, 2017 is The Year for that SHTF MOMENT ...... and PF, Cdl Burke, your National/Local "Leadership" and, probably, most of your neighbors will do NOTHING to feed your family, ensure the delivery of power/H2O and protect you from Barbarians. I pledge allegiance to The Holy Trinity and The Constitution of the USA and realize that, besides prayer ... no mean thing!, I have Zero impact on the goings-on in the Vatican/DC. I also know my efforts to prepare are feeble and perhaps, for me anyway, futile .... but at least I won't be accused of "letting my lamp run dry" as those silly wedding virgins that the Gospels speak of ..... Eh!?? How about you and your situation? GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
I really appreciate this Crew Dog, I am smiling and glad to hear from you, your own inimitable self, and you are speaking some wise words.......Back to my lamp oil supply
Syncretism and intercommunion? http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/ind...te-catholic-non-negotiables-in-a-soft-manner/ Fra Cristoforo: Francis had plans with Clinton to “rehabilitate” Catholic non-negotiables “in a soft manner” Hilary White•Feb 15, 2017 in Uncategorized The Catholic TwittFace world is popping and sparking and buzzing and sizzling with this, like an Italian electrical socket. This anonymous blog in Italian, clearly based in Rome, is the latest coolest thing among the Rome Vatican-watchers. There. Y’all’re running with the cool kids now! (To head off the inevitable barrage of questions: no, I have no idea who he is.) So far we’ve only had it in crappy Google-translate English. But a friend has helpfully helped to clarify the details with a good translation from the Italian original. “Tip-offs III: the great “renewals” of Bergoglio” by Fra Cristoforo Let me tell you a story. Last Thursday, in a coffee bar in front of the Porta S. Anna (facing Vatican City) a Monsignor (very close to Bergoglio) in his 50s and a layman go for a coffee. The discussion turns to the “dubia”. The Monsignor, with an “enough” says: “The Pope will never answer the “dubia” of the 4 Cardinals. He will never lower himself to their level. Francis has much bigger plans, which do not stop with Italy. The only hitch during this period has been the election of Trump.” To which the layman replied: “And what has Trump got to do with Amoris Laetitia?” “He has everything to do with it” replied the Monsignor, continuing: “the aim was to back Clinton, because she has a special relationship with Francis. They’re in frequent contact. And the goal to be reached was that the Catholic Church was to rehabilitate certain “non negotiable” principles in a soft manner, in such a way that the Vatican too would have had strong global political support, which is needed at this time, above all for the big manoeuvres which are coming.” About this we must agree with the great Assange… read here … The layman even more amazed says: “And which manoeuvres are coming?” The Monsignor sips the last drops of coffee and says: “But have you still not understood that the vision which you have of the Church has been left behind? “…But do you not understand that today the Pope is a world leader? That had Ratzinger stayed we’d all be finished. Do you know what the next manoeuvre will be? Precisely the diaconate for women. Because it’s the only way to show our concrete closeness to the Lutherans and Anglicans. And you will see that by November we will have the diaconate for women. Not of course identical with what you think. But it will come very close.” “BY NOVEMBER.” ~ There it is, in so many words what was said confidentially by the Monsignor of the Secretariat of State. Now let us take a moment to reflect. Saint Peter’s Square is by this point almost always empty (and ‘Tv 2000’ only films that small group of people crowded together in front of the window.) What do the faithful matter to Bergoglio? From the contents of this conversation it can be inferred that the Argentinean has plans much broader than evangelisation. Often and willingly he has said that evangelisation is a form of proselytism, which is not OK. Just recently he even said that he is worried that in certain congregations there are many vocations. There you are. He seeks only himself. He seeks to keep the spotlights on himself, and not to tread on anyone’s toes, because he is the LEADER. And Jesus Christ does not concern him. How unlike St Paul. The Apostle to the gentiles said “we are become as the refuse of the world” (1 Cor 4,9-13) precisely because in first place he put evangelisation. Bergoglio instead, to the prejudice of Christ and of the salvation of souls, wants the first place for himself. Dear readers, this is the reality. And in a week there will be more appalling news. But I won’t anticipate the press releases. The reason behind my anonymity is this. I am a priest, but I HAVE TO be anonymous. Otherwise I would no longer have any way of writing these things to you. I have reflected on this a great deal in these last months. But I still cannot reveal myself publicly. I do however still think it important that the faithful “understand” the dynamics which are evolving in the See of Peter. And these discussions at the coffee bar are for me extremely relevant, and in conscience I have to communicate them to you. Fra Cristoforo And the question about the “bomb” Perp Francers is preparing for the “whole world” is running around Rome journalist circles. Everyone seems to be talking about “the big one,” though no one knows exactly what it’s supposed to be. Personally, my money’s on an Ecumenical Council. Vatican III that his buddy Kasper has wanted all these years. But if this is true, there is an even bigger question. Councils aren’t just a happy little get-together. They always have a stated goal. They are called for particular ends. It might be a good idea to ask ourselves, what could Jorge Mario Bergoglio want badly enough to call an Ecumenical Council to get? What could he want that he does he not already have?
Found it: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-heretic-pope.html To summarize: the Western Church accepted the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, that Jesus was/is True God AND True Man. In the Eastern Church, the Monophysite heresy (where Jesus had only one will, Divine, his human will and nature having been subsumed) was still strong. The Byzantine Emperor of Constantinople sought a way to unify the two teachings in order to bring peace to the Empire. The result was a new heresy, Monothelitism. Pope Honorius (625-638) supported the Emperor. The long and short of it is that while Honorius never declared or issued any documents regarding the truth of this heresy (thus conserving papal infallibility), he allowed and supported others in promoting it. For this reason, the Third Council of Constantinople was convened in 680. In the Council, Monothelitism was condemned as heretical, and all those who had supported and taught it were declared heretics and anathematized. This included Pope Honorius. So, to split hares (rabbit soup! yum!) : A Pope cannot declare a heresy to be a truth. However, in documents (letters, etc.) which don't add up to a presumption of infallible teaching, a Pope may express heretical views and may in fact be a heretic. Amortis Laetae does not meet the standards of an ex cathedra document. And, BrianK, as to the question of "what could Jorge Mario Bergoglio want badly enough to call an Ecumenical Council to get?", I believe it would be a redefinition of Biblical views of marriage. However, if in fact such an Ecumenical Council were to be held, it may wind up supporting traditional marriage (no communion for divorced/remarried, no homosexual marriage) AND it may have the authority to depose the pope for attempting to promulgate heresy.
A female diaconate is a precursor to priestesses. Once you get deaconesses, they will insist on ordination out of 'fairness'. Remember how we got gay marriage? Civil partnerships, which were then deemed to be 'unfair'. Thus, if we are to go with the subjective forum, then same sex marriage is the logical endgame. Everything else is fudge, smoke and mirrors.
I have a horrid thought, and I concur with the above postings, and I might add that perhaps this may be the False Prophet who works with the Antichrist in the New World Order. Or, as Muzhik has suggested, perhaps a Council would vote to keep to the Traditional Magisterium and vote down the communion of the divorced and remarried. I want to say something. I have not posted this thought, and I haven't really shared it with anyone lately. When Pope Francis came out onto St. Peter's balcony for the first time, I was oddly struck by his cold eyes. They glittered. There was no warmth. For awhile after that, he was all warm and fuzzy and embracing and so forth. Now it seems we are back to the cold hard looks in a stony visage. I did not have a good feeling at all for a long time, and I was never really in sync with him and his statements. However, feelings are not faith, as we have said before, and since he is the Holy Father, I have prayed for him and not said much in a disparaging way about him. But things aren't adding up here. I am glad that I can find this information on the forum.
