Padraig Your comments especially below opened my eyes to the reality of the situation we are in. " Suppose for a moment you knew and had information regarding a deadly virus that could kill millions of people all round the world. Suppose again you knew that the regularity authorities and media were ignoring or burying the issue. Clearly you would have a moral duty to headline the issue so that people could take whatever steps they could to protect themselves and initiate action to control the infection. " You are right on; if I had not read MOG my soul would not have been attuned to what is happening in our Church. The very fact the institutional church is proceeding as with blinds over its eyes and tone deaf, so that it sees only what it wants to see and hears only what it wants to hear. It has not and will not speak up to support the demand for answers to the dubia. The Vatican has not and will not require the Maltese, German or other like dioceses to clarify. We have a duty to the Church (the bride of Christ) to let the world know that a new mark is being prepared. I think you know the "mark" I mean. God Bless
The advice of these diocese along with Cardinal Coccopalmerio's recent booklet are not lacking in clarity. It is because of their clarity that they are disturbing people. Those people believe the change of discipline in the reception of Holy Communion is wrong. There is a division of opinion in the Church, not a lack of clarity.
FP, You know if you click on the results, the names of the individuals who voted will be shown. There is a list for each category when you click on the results. I ve done that in the past for curiosity. LOL I voted to keep it open (confessions of a granny). Because it is better to have the annoyance and not miss out on new happenings. However, I think Hot and Bothered would be a better heading than Church Critique IMHO. Then what you see is what you get. LOL And the ignore button is a gift from Heaven. Praise God and well done Padraig.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...-now-in-a-full-blown-civil-war-over-doctrine/ The Church is now in a full-blown civil war over doctrine Cardinal Coccopalmerio's book is only the latest example of Catholic teaching being questioned A few weeks ago, the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica published a startling article on women priests. Its arguments were familiar: the author, deputy editor Fr Giancarlo Pani, asked readers to consider whether an all-male priesthood might perhaps be outdated. “There is unease,” Fr Pani wrote, “among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.” What is startling is that this appeared in a journal edited by one of the Pope’s closest advisers, Fr Antonio Spadaro; a journal very close to the Holy See – every page is vetted by the Vatican – which the Pope recently praised. It suggests that the Church, even at its highest levels, is now entering a full-blown civil war over doctrine. There was a further example yesterday, when Vatican Radio promoted a new book by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, the president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Cardinal Coccopalmerio says that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion if they have some wish to change their situation – even if they are not endeavouring to live “as brother and sister”. In some cases, the cardinal says, avoiding sex may be “an impossibility”. He gives the example of a man who is deserted by his wife. The man starts living with another woman. She helps to raise his kids. If the relationship breaks down, the man could be plunged into “deep despair” and the children would be left without a maternal figure. The cardinal writes: “Leaving the union would mean, therefore, not fulfilling a moral duty towards innocent persons.” If avoiding sex would “cause difficulty”, then they should continue having sex to keep the relationship going. The implications of Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s argument seem at odds with the Church’s doctrine. To take the most obvious point first, the cardinal’s view that an adulterous sexual relationship is compatible with receiving Communion is simply in a head-on clash with Catholic teaching. That the two are incompatible has been taught by Pope St John Paul II in 1981, Benedict XVI in 2007, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994, not to mention Popes St Innocent I, St Zachary, St Nicholas I … One could go on. But this is not the only problem with Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s book. Take his assumption that avoiding sex may be an “impossibility”. It is very hard to square this with the Council of Trent’s declaration: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.” That means that God, our loving Father, will never stop helping us out. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks that avoiding sin may sometimes be beyond us. Again, the cardinal’s conclusions about continence “causing difficulty” seem dubious. St Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, condemned the idea that one could “do evil so that good may come of it”. The Church has interpreted this very strictly. St Thomas Aquinas, following this perennial teaching, said that one should not have adulterous sex even if it could save an entire country from disaster. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks one can have adulterous sex if it would “cause difficulty” not to. As for the question of Communion itself: clearly, someone in a continuing adulterous relationship is at high risk of being a state of mortal sin. Only God knows, but if someone is committing a grave sin, while “discerning” their path in relation to Catholic teaching, then this is a pretty substantial possibility. And taking Communion in a state of mortal sin is, according to St John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests, the worst sin of all – worse than crucifying Christ. Many of the divorced and remarried stay away from Communion precisely to avoid committing a mortal sin. Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s approach suggests that this risk is, in some cases, too insignificant to be an obstacle. Now, of course, the cardinal does not say any of this outright. He does not say, “I think John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the tradition of the Church are wrong. I suspect the moral law may sometimes be impossible to keep. I have no problem, in principle, with doing evil so that good may come of it. And I do not think that receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin is such a terrible sin that we need to take great precautions against it.” But the mere fact that he does not say these things is hardly a comfort. The less generous interpretation would be that religious error always tries to avoid clarity. Blessed John Henry Newman noted that the Arians used “vague ambiguous language, which … would seem to bear a Catholic sense, but which, when worked out in the long run, would prove to be heterodox”. The more generous view is that the cardinal has not quite thought through his words, and would retract them if he realised what they implied. Cardinal Coccopalmerio is a senior Vatican figure: his book has appeared with evident support from within the Vatican, and without official contradiction. And his opinion is close to that of many other prelates (such as the bishops of Malta and most of those in Germany). So the debate about Communion can no longer be seen – if it ever could – as a marginal squabble between “liberals” and “conservatives”. Nor can it be framed as a question of whether you prefer a bit more mercy or a bit more justice. It is now, quite plainly, a debate about whether the teaching of the Church is still valid. And that means the debate will run and run.
My apologies, I should have been more clear. In those areas where his words and actions have deviated from scripture and the 2000 year teaching of Christ's Church I owe him no obedience whatsoever, and by these words and actions he has made himself an enemy of the Truth and in this regard only, thus, my enemy.
Just a quick view from a different perspective. We had the year of Mercy. So first Jesus comes as the King of Mercy from December 8th 2015 to November 20th 2016. Then at some point before December 2017 He comes as the Just Judge. When you come to think of it. If Holy Father wanted to open the gates to allow as many souls in as possible in case Jesus comes to correct our conscience by the end of this year 2017. I wonder if Holy Father had put a time limit like for one year, that would be a one year armistice so to speak. Then we would not have all these Catholics going ballistic. At least they would expect things to go back to normal once the armistice had passed. Well that is one thought I hope might be a possibility. Come Lord Jesus, come and help us scattered sheep. Lord, has our poor Shepherd been struck. Save us Lord before we perish.
Padraig, I have already raised a question on this forum before, asking if anyone remembered Jesus asked Sister now Saint Faustina to bring Heretics and Schismatics as one of the groups of souls during the nine day Novena to Merciful Jesus leading up to the Sunday after Easter. In other words we were already warned to pray for heretics and schismatics as long ago as 1938. OK. It was silenced until Saint John Paul allowed the Divine Mercy devotion again in the 70's. No one ever seemed to click what I was talking about. It was about what we are discussing now. 'Heresy' The Church in her wisdom dropped the ugly words heretics and schismatics because it seemed to be directed to the other Christian Churches. Now we know it was a prophesy about what was to come. And come it seems even in the highest echalons of Holy Mother Church. So let's calm down and pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet, begging Merciful Jesus to have Mercy on the Heretics and Schismatics in our Church today. We should have opened our eyes to this 40 or 50 years ago, and prayed as we were instructed by Jesus Himself. Of course we could argue that it would be disobedient to the Church to pray for heretics and schismatics, if the Church preferred we call them Separated Brethren, the actual wording permitted, instead of the actual words dictated by Jesus to Saint Faustina. We all failed to understand. That is what I am trying to say.
Your initial gut reaction was correct; Jesus had it right, and the Church folded to the world's pressure in this regard.
I doubt that he will be listed and an anti-pope, as he was validly elected (unless the ballots were manipulated). A False Prophet surely could be and most likely will be a pope, whether validly elected or not. This remains to be seen, but clearly has been uttered in credible prophecy.
David How can a Church discipline override established Church doctrine? the use of "accompaniement" and other such words with inbuilt vagueness is the tool used. For example to suggest "impossible" is meaningful, seems to deny the effectiveness of "grace". St.Paul was enlightened by God to say about his own "thorn in the flesh" that "My grace is sufficient unto thee". God Bless
Actually, if he knowingly held heretical views (such as communion for all regardless of the state of their soul) and did not reveal them before the election, then that would invalidate the election. The cardinal electors could not then make an informed choice when voting.
This brings to mind the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi. It's a very strange prophecy in that it says a man not canonically elected will be raised to the Pontificate but ends with this: "Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer." I read somewhere that there are doubts about the authenticity of that prophecy, but it does seem to be describing at least some of what's happening now. Here's the full prophecy: "Act bravely, my brethren, take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. There will be such diversity and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusions, by the immense mercy of God. Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect. Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."
I don't know how long I will be allowed to defend the Holy Father and the bishops and cardinals but I feel I must do so. Seeing all the harsh comments of yesterday made me think of how things must have been at the Crucifixion with the crowd shouting at Jesus. The Catholic Herald article about Cardinal Coccopalmerio's booklet was a particular disappointment to me. I subscribe to the weekly magazine and its conversion from newspaper to magazine has been a great success. But now, sadly, it has got a new deputy editor, Dan Hitchens, who is clearly a Francis critic. His article, posted earlier in the thread, 'reports' on the Cardinal's booklet but throws into it his own views about the matter in hand. And those views effectively obscure and misinterpret the Cardinal's arguments. A particular cause of outrage from the critics seems to be the article's interpretation of the Cardinal's words as saying the remarried can receive Communion "if continence is ‘impossible’" The Cardinal's actual words were: “absolution and access to the Eucharist as long as – I repeat – there is the impossibility of immediately changing the situation of sin.” A fundamental point missed by the critics is that remarried couples are not independent in the matter of continence. One partner may be prepared and wish for continence, the other not. The extracts from the Cardinal's booklet are clearly made and can be easily understood but I'm afraid there seems to be little desire on the part of the Pope's critics to pay much attention to what he has said apart from picking out bits that they can use to push their own ideas. Despite all the criticisms, the Pope continues to lead the Church with love, confidence and firmness and I encourage everyone to stay faithful to the Church and its appointed son.
This is from Mark Mallett: While some already felt this prophecy was fulfilled in the great schism, which desolated the Church after the election of Urban VI, [3] it is understandably tempting not to apply it in some way to our times. In just the relatively brief period of the past 40-50 years, scandals have multiplied, religious orders have been obliterated, and there is such a diversity of opinion on basic moral law, Blessed John Paul II rightly lamented that “Vast sectors of society are confused about what is right and what is wrong.” [4] It is during this time of moral chaos that St. Francis sees very few Christians ‘who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff.’ He says ‘true,’ which implies that there would be an “untrue” pope, which is precisely what he goes on to prophesy: At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. It is this man whom St. Francis is referring to when he says, ‘…in those days, Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.’ Yes, in the Old Testament, God often sent the Israelites an immoral or oppressive leader in order to chastise His people when they went astray. Could this be Pope Francis in the saint’s prophecy? Simply, no. The reason is that he was canonically elected. He is not an anti-pope. This was acknowledged by no less than the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who is one of the greatest theologians in modern times, his predecessor, Benedict XVI. And not a single Cardinal, particularly those more renowned faithful and holy sons of the Church, has stepped forward to say that something incongruous took place in the Conclave or in Benedict’s resignation. There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd… [My] last and final job [is] to support [Pope Francis’] pontificate with prayer. —POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, Vatican City, Feb. 26th, 2014; Zenit.org http://www.markmallett.com/blog/the-prophecy-of-st-francis/
If you would not be allowed anymore to express your opinion (which moreover is an opinion without hatred), then this forum would not be democratic anymore. And we do not live in a communist country... I also think that if all persons in this forum would "say their thing" about the Church and the Pope in a respectful way without hatred, then I think there would be no problem at all in this forum. I always say "Vive la liberté d'expression ! But do it respectful and peaceful ! How beautiful life could be... View attachment 6137
