well said Padraig ! Its so hard to trust in the unknown. but trust ,we must ! ........ nice dogs.....who walks who lol
That's what Faith is. I , personally , find it very, very , very hard with our present Pontiff. But I do.
I think many were expecting this kind of Pope, but God always extends His mercy before His judgement. It is all so clear now as to why Bergoglio was elected. The year of mercy will define his Papacy. He will be known as the Pope of Mercy. It appears that God chose the head of the church itself to be the last ambassador of His mercy.
Seems like they accepted what Vatican required of them as article below indicates: "In a joint report marking the conclusion of a multi-year mandate for reform, members of the LCWR have agreed to corrections called for by the Vatican, and said they will continue on the path of dialogue." http://www.angelusnews.com/news/nat...forms-on-doctrine-theology-7709/#.VTJTX9q9KSN
PAPA FRANCIS also as a huge outreach to the poor. Intresting quote by Pope St John XXIII on the poor and renewal of the Church to come... This was on EWTN Church Universal Neocatechumenal Way episode 5 ...around the 6 minute mark
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3819/who_really_won_the_sisters_or_the_vatican.aspx “Who really won? The sisters or the Vatican?” Pope Francis meets with representatives of the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious in his library in the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican April 16. The same day the Vatican announced the conclusion of a seven-year process of investigation and dialogue with the group to ensure fidelity to church teachings. The outcome resulted in revised statues approved by the Vatican. (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano) A French journalist I know called me for help on an article she was writing about the reform plan for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) accepted April 16 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). She said she was confused by all the articles on the topic in the U.S. press and wanted to ask me “Who really won? The sisters or the Vatican?” At first I was stunned by this win-lose terminology, and I wondered why she would have considered the doctrinal reform of a canonically-erected entity to be a conflict of some kind, with the outcome producing a winner and a loser. My own impression of the outcome was that everyone won because the CDF had helped the LCWR to be a better organization for sisters by refocusing its role to be “centered on Jesus Christ and faithful to the teachings of the Church,” according to the final report. Then I took time to read several media stories on the topic and discovered that some of the articles made it sound as if the CDF’s reform of the LCWR indeed was adversarial, akin to “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral” or a new “Star Wars” sequel. Consider, for example, this headline from the April 16 New York Times: “Vatican Ends Battle With U.S. Catholic Nuns’ Group.” Writer Laurie Goodstein then went on to use such inflammatory language as “confrontation,” “vexing and unjust inquisition” and “standoff.” Several other articles used similar language, saying the reform effort was a “takeover” of the group, and some simply declared that the sisters had won a battle with the Vatican. Miriam Krule writing for Slate called the reform agreement a “victory and vindication for LCWR.” It seems as if some writers simply shaped the outcome to reflect their own hopes and expectations. No wonder my French friend was confused. Adding to her confusion were articles that contained downright incorrect information on the topic, making me wonder if the writers had actually read the CDF-LCWR joint final report. Perhaps accurate research is just not their thing. For example, several articles reported that the reform was ended “abruptly” or “early,” an indication that the Holy See just wanted to be done with the matter. “The review was supposed to run until 2017,” declared the April 16 International Business Times. The Associated Press and Jesuit Father James Martin writing at America made the same claim, while St. Louis Public Radio insisted the reform “was set up as a four-year investigation.” Had those writers done their homework and actually read the CDF 2012 mandate, they would have seen this sentence: “The mandate of the Delegate will be for a period of up to five years, as deemed necessary” (emphasis added). Thus, if the LCWR had accepted the reforms readily, the process could have been concluded in weeks instead of years. The five-year time frame was set to avoid endless dialogue, a method of dealing with church officials that LCWR officials have used for years. It should be noted that most of the articles criticizing the reform never bothered to quote at length the joint CDF-LCWR final report or accompanying press release. To do so would have disproven many of their claims, so some writers simply cherry-picked or distorted passages or used partial quotes to convey a meaning quite opposite the speaker’s intention. For example, Elizabeth Whitman writing for the International Business Times glibly reported that CDF Prefect, Cardinal Gerhard Müller said his office was "confident that LCWR has made clear its mission to support its member institutes." The writer left off the rest of the prefect’s sentence and paragraph, which continued: “by fostering a vision of religious life that is centered on the Person of Jesus Christ and is rooted in the Tradition of the Church. It is this vision that makes religious women and men radical witnesses to the Gospel, and, therefore, is essential for the flourishing of religious life in the Church.” Over at Religion News Service, writer David Gibson creatively selected the prefect’s above words to praise the LCWR: “Mueller said he was confident that the mission of the nuns ‘is rooted in the Tradition of the Church’ and that they are ‘essential for the flourishing of religious life in the Church.’” If I were still an English teacher, I would have Gibson diagram the prefect’s sentences so that he could see the cardinal said it is the proper vision of religious life that is rooted in the tradition of the church—not the LCWR mission—and it is that proper vision which is essential for the flourishing of religious life—not the LCWR sisters. Adding to the misinformation is the creative speculation about the role of Pope Francis in bringing the LCWR reform to a conclusion, with several writers proclaiming that his emphasis on mercy precludes any correction of dissent. The New York Times article declared that “Francis has shown in his two-year papacy that he is less interested in having the church police doctrinal boundaries than in demonstrating mercy and love for the poor and vulnerable.” I didn’t know that doctrinal integrity was incompatible with mercy and love, and I don’t think Pope Francis believes this either, for he has stood strong on doctrinal matters while modeling mercy and love. It also is amusing to read the speculation about the LCWR audience with Pope Francis, for the Vatican has issued no information about what was discussed, and the LCWR news release about the meeting does not even mention the CDF reform of the organization. Rather, the LCWR reported that the papal audience “centered on Evangelii gaudium, the pope’s apostolic exhortation.” Yet, some writers speculated that the pope had apologized to the LCWR at the audience. The New York Times quoted theologian Eileen Burke-Sullivan saying the papal audience was “about as close to an apology, I would think, as the Catholic Church is officially going to render.” If Ms. Burke-Sullivan had been paying attention, she would have known that the LCWR had asked Pope Francis for an audience during the reform process, and some sisters had not been shy about expressing their hope the new pope would reverse the decision of his predecessor to approve the CDF reform. However, Francis had told the CDF to continue the reform, and he did not grant an audience with LCWR until an hour or so after the CDF accepted the terms of the LCWR reform. If Pope Francis had not approved the LCWR reform, he could have stopped it the day he was elected. I think the confusion of my French journalist friend can be cleared up simply by carefully reading the primary documents involved—the CDF-LCWR joint final report and its accompanying press release, and the 2012 CDF mandate of reform. It’s too bad so many journalists in this country did not do so before writing their articles.
It’s too bad so many journalists in this country did not do so before writing their articles.[/quote] The lesson here imo, is to go to source documents, and read for yourself rather than let the media tell you what someone said. I think this is a good lesson and preservation for the Synod in the Fall. Peace.
Good advice. (Fortunately I've got my own inside sources for news about the Synod which I trust more than either the MSM or the Catholic media.)
Cardinal Kasper defends Ireland’s gay ‘marriage’ decision By Maike Hickson NEWS ANALYSIS May 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The grave effects of Ireland’s May 22 referendum in favor of a same-sex “marriages,” not only for the secular world, but also especially for the Catholic Church, are showing themselves already. None other than the leading cardinal who has promoted the liberal agenda for the two-part Synod of Bishops on the Family, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has now come out publicly and with force, telling the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Church needs to address more fully the question of same-sex couples. This topic was at the last Synod “only a marginal topic, but now it becomes central,” Kasper said on Wednesday. Kasper also defended the vote of the Irish in favor of homosexual “marriages,” saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.” He also said that the Irish referendum is “emblematic for the situation in which we find ourselves, not only in Europe, but in the whole West.” Kasper also said: “The postmodern concept – following which everything is equal – stands in contrast to the doctrine of the Church.” Cardinal Kasper made a link between the events in Ireland and the doctrine of the Catholic Church, when he said it now becomes harder for the Church to explain its own moral position to others in the question of homosexuality. “We have to find a new language,” he said. “We have to overcome [unjust] discrimination, which has a long tradition in our culture.” It is important in his view to honor those long-lasting same-sex relationships, which contain “elements of the good,” even though the Church cannot change its fundamental attitude toward them since they are themselves against the teaching of the Gospels. Many observers have long expected Cardinal Kasper's more explicit public support for the homosexual agenda, saying that the “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships. The other reason for this expectation is that Cardinal Walter Kasper had recently published his own book about Pope Francis, entitled Pope Francis' Revolution of Tenderness and Love, and it was produced by Paulist Press. Father Mark-David Janus, president and publisher of Paulist Press, was present when Cardinal Kasper gave Pope Francis himself a copy of this new book on March 17. At a private audience later on the same day, Father Janus presented the pope with a promotional film on “LGBT Catholics,” called “Owning Our Faith,” which he himself had helped to bring about. These facts – which may be seen on the website of the St. Philip Neri Catholic Church – administered by the same Paulist Fathers – speak for themselves. This current initiative of Cardinal Kasper comes, however, also right after a somewhat concealed May 25 “Day of Study” at the Gregorian University in Rome, which was organized by the three presidents of the Swiss, French, and German Bishops' Conferences – Bishop Markus Büchel, Archbishop Georges Pontier, and Cardinal Reinhard Marx – who met with 50 participants: “partakers of the Synod, professors of theology, members of the Roman Curia, as well as journalists,” according to the press release of the German Bishops' Conference of May 26. The general theme of this confidential gathering was the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family, and the substance of the presentations was also to be kept confidential. The participants were even asked to preserve a silence after the Day of Study was over. As Catholic News Agency reports: One of the speakers, who asked to be kept anonymous, refused to comment on the purpose of the conference and the tone of the discussion, as “it is unfortunately forbidden to us by the organizers to give any interview or explanation about yesterday's conference.” The well-respected Vatican reporter Edward Pentin spoke with Cardinal Marx after he exited the confidential meeting. Pentin reports: Speaking to the Register as he left the meeting, Cardinal Marx insisted the study day wasn’t secret. But he became irritated when pressed about why it wasn’t advertised, saying he had simply come to Rome in a “private capacity” and that he had every right to do so. Close to Pope Francis and part of his nine-member council of cardinals, the cardinal is known to be especially eager to reform the Church’s approach to homosexuals. During his Pentecost homily last Sunday, Cardinal Marx called for a “welcoming culture” in the Church for homosexuals, saying it’s “not the differences that count, but what unites us.” As different media outlets have subsequently been able to report, the following themes were discussed favorably at this Rome meeting, all of which items indicate a liberalizing tendency: a new “theology of love”: sexuality as a precious gift of God, as itself an expression of love the Church's acceptance of homosexual unions the Church's listening to the voice of the Baptized in moral questions a Catholic Hermeneutic of the Bible on the basis of the words of Jesus about divorce the change of moral patterns in a pluralistic society admittance of “remarried” couples to the sacraments a second marriage as an “authentic union” the indissolubility of marriage as “an ideal or 'utopia'” the importance of the human sex drive sexuality as basis for a long-lasting relationship with the lengthening of lifespans, the borders of fidelity are also changed the development of Church doctrine and discipline over time The spokesman for this one-day meeting, Matthias Kopp, told Catholic News Service on May 27, after some criticisms had arisen: “I reject the thesis that the bishops have an agenda to change church teaching.” In spite of this denial, many Catholics are indignant and suspicious about the procedure and tendency of this meeting, since many of the bishops, who are meant to be represented by the presidents of their own national bishops’ conferences, were not even informed about the confidential meeting, let alone invited. Manfred Spieker, a German layman and professor emeritus of Christian social studies of the University of Osnabrück, wrote on May 28 on the German-speaking website kath.net about the fact that the other bishops were not even informed about the meeting, as organized by the three presidents of their bishops' conferences: “This is close to an abuse of their office as moderators of the Bishops' Conference, because their proper role as a president of a bishops' conference is not much more than being a moderator.” He insists that their methods are undermining the explicit intent of the Synod of Bishops, which calls for and promises openness and fairness: A conference that resembles more a secretive gathering than an academic, and therewith open event stands in opposition to the proclaimed openness and fairness. It is divisive. The three bishops [Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences] also did not invite those journalists who are known experts on the subject, but only those who share their views and are able to intensify the public pressure which this whole meeting is supposed to place upon the Synod in October. Professor Spieker compares this conduct with some of the methods that were used during the last Synod of Bishops, saying: “The attempts at manipulation which had reached – already during the extraordinary Synod of Bishops of 2014 – an until-now-unknown level in the Church, have now reached a new stage with this conference at the Gregoriana.” The German professor also comments, as follows, on the above-mentioned themes and on the statements made at the meeting which have now been leaked: “It will certainly not escape the notice of the Presidents of the three Bishops' Conferences, what schismatic potential is to be found in such expressed views.”
There was another character....a layman/professor was also quoted in another article spoke of the Church needing to jettison the "natural law" as any basis for morality these days!
It would great to read Kaspers comments in full. I must say I am most concerned with his statement: "A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.” So is this majority rules no matter what? From a German, this is really quite shortsighted as back in the 1930's the "will" of the people declared Jews to be subhuman. When something is wrong and goes against natural law, it us always wrong even if 99.99999% of the "people" vote for it. Very troubling.
This is where i lose friends. I hate it when Our Holy Father and Pontiff Pope Francis is referred to as Bergoglio. If someone addressed me like that i would ask them who they thought they were and who they thought they were talking to. They would be told to mind their manners and if they persisted I would tell them to leave my premises. In the old days they would have been in danger of a punch on the nose.....If they didnt look too dangerous haha. The Pope or Pope Francis at least please. Not Bergoglio. Respect, at least for the Office he holds.
It was not my intention to berate the Pope in any way. I simply used the name he had before his election because it seemed to fit the point of the sentence better. Pope Francis has touched me in a personal and emotional way that no other Pope ever has. He has personally made me a better person by his example. I have had to bare a cross my entire life of being misunderstood, it seems the Lord even wants me to bare this cross on internet forums. ha ha.
Yup its not nice to be misunderstood. What was the prayer of St Francis ....that he was given the grace more to understand than be understood. So we are in good company. He would not have prayed for this if he had not seen this shortcoming in himself. Keep on trucking and don't pay too much attention to this old curmudgeon.
The Subverters of the Word of God The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly."(Jn 18:19-20) *** May their names live in infamy forever and ever for their intent to assemble secretly to discard the clear words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of Him Who Himself is Love, and to favor a certain kind of press to make their new doctrine known to the world: BISHOPS: Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop of Munich and Freising Archbishop Georges Pontier, president of the French Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop of Marseille Bishop Markus Büchel, president of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, Bishop of St. Gallen Bishop Franz-Josef Bode of Osnabrück, Germany Bishop Heiner Koch of Dresden-Meißen, Germany Bishop Felix Gmür of Basel, Switzerland Bishop Jean-Marie Lovey of Sitten, Switzerland Bishop Bruno Ann-Marie Feillet of Reims, France Bishop Jean-Luc Brunin of Le Havre, France PROFESSORS/PRIESTS:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
I do not wish to engage in slander here, but in the light of the presence of Abp Georges Pontier in this context, two comments: i) Since his election as president of the French Bishops' Conference, several public accusations have been made on the internet that Abp Pontier is or has been a freemason belonging to the Grand Orient de France. Whether or not this is true is naturally difficult to ascertain, but no formal denial has been forthcoming from the Archbishop, despite the obvious gravity of the charge. Draw your own conclusions. ii) according to a recent interview for Stella Maris (www.parvis.ch) recorded in Luxembourg earlier this year and published this month, Vassula Rydén alleged that as Archbishop of Marseille, Mgr Pontier circulated a letter in 2011 against her upcoming meetings in France, bearing the names of all the bishops of the region, without consulting them. For those aware of the extensive denunciations of ecclesiastical freemasonry found in much private revelation over many decades (True Life in God, Fr Gobbi, Ottavio Michelini, Marcel Van, Marie-Claire Liberatore (a.k.a. 'Fille de Soleil de Justice'), 'Françoise' ...), such opposition on the part of certain elements of the hierarchy comes as no coincidence.
Miker, Extreme thought That would mean elections in states that are muslim would be allowed to have laws that persecute Christian. Very Dangerous Brother al
