It is impossible to convince others of the Truth of what we say if we do not believe it 100% ourselves. People will quite easily see that with our arguments we are only trying to convince ourselves. We need to convince ourselves first ; then others. I believe this is Mark's difficulty. He is confused. The confused will never win over the confused. Even if they did, what good would it do?
Pascendi Dominici, issued by Pope Pius X in September 1907, should be required reading for all Catholics especially in these times when Modernism (the synthesis of all heresies) is in the ascendancy in Christ's Church: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-...-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html I think that Mark said somewhere up the thread that 98% of what Pope Francis says is orthodox. I don't know how he arrived at that percentage or what he considers to be part of the other 2%. Perhaps Mark's 2% can be found described in Pascendi Dominici. For example: But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil. Further down the document, Pope Pius said this of the Modernists' errors: But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, as they understand it, revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religious sentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and fromGod; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed. Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline. Although it is long, I urge everyone to read Pascendi Dominici because it covers just about everything we see happening around us. Some might say that Pope Francis is the Modernists' dream come true. I believe that his papacy brings us precipitously close to the Modernists achieving their objective - a complete take-over of the Church and it didn't happen by chance. It was aided an abetted by the likes of the St. Gallen group and the self-styled "Catholic Spring". I'm sure that they weren't the only such groups, but to the Modernists, their apologists and (however unknowlingly) fellow travellers, I suppose that makes me a conspiracy theorist. We can't be 100% certain that Pope Francis is a modernist. Looking at his actions, many of his pronouncements, and the people he promotes, praises and honours (not least Martin Luther), I believe that we can be 100% certain that Pope Francis is enabling (in some cases encouraging) the perversion of the Faith. It's not unlike the behaviour which got Honorius 1 condemned. Initially, he was condemned as a heretic but that was reduced to permitting the perversion of the faith. In the absence of some evidence that Pope Francis isn't in league with the Modernists, I expect that some future Council and Pope will pass an Honorius type judgement on this papacy. God will Judge the Pope's soul.
There’s the old analogy of being offered a glass of fine wine. It’s 99.9% pure, superb vintage wine. But the other 0.01% is arsenic and cyanide. Why would someone drink it, even if they were a fan of that fine vintage? That’s what we’re being told to do. Pray, pay and obey. Bottoms up! As G.K. Chesterton quipped, “Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.”
The disciples went and woke Him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” 26“You of little faith,”Jesus replied, “why are you so afraid?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it wasperfectly calm. 27The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!”…
I give Mark Mallett allot of credit. He knew it would not be pretty coming into MOG lions den and frankly, I am happy that he did. He is well thought out and deserves our appreciation for providing a slightly different take then most on this forum, but we all have to answer to the same God and I am sure we will all be surprised in many degrees where we failed to see as God sees. We all do the best we can. Thanks Mark.
I agree. Thanks Mark. He could learn a few things from the contributions we made here. BUT let's all remember we could learn some things from him too. I think he goes too far in explaining away some of the things the Pope does, but often we here can be quick to judge things the Pope has said or done in a negative light before all of the facts are in. I have done this myself and regretted it. It is only natural of course because once bitten, twice shy... Still, we should always attempt to give the Pope (or anyone) the benefit of the doubt when possible, especially as regards inner intentions and motives. None of us knows what he is truly thinking as much as we may think we do.
Agreed. There's clearly something not right, but it's not possible to know what the Pope is thinking. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's not.
Mark is great and I can't wait to meet him, likely in the after life. I agree with pretty much every point he makes.
Thought I would pop in at the end of the day. Thanks for the kind words of encouragement above. I also want to encourage those of you who are walking the line of charity. That's the entire basis of my viewpoints. Padraig... you keep saying I'm confused, but you don't explain why. You seem to take issue with a position that: one can support and promote the Catholic teachings of Pope Francis while at the same time acknowledging that he is sometimes ambiguous. I would not call that confusion but clarity. I think the blindness is in those who not only fail to see the good in Francis, but use forums like these to calumniate him. I shudder, for Jesus said to the disciples: Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16) Those who think they can out-of-hand dismiss everything the Pope says, because he has been ambiguous at other times, are the ones who are terribly confused if not vain. Furthermore, those who say that defender's of Pope Francis have a "Pollyanna" view of the papacy need to reconsider the words of St. Paul: "Love... does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth." (1 Cor 13:6) I rejoice when I hear the Pope—or anyone for that matter—speak the truth. In fact, St. Paul would quote pagan philosophers, and the truth they learned through reason, so as to find common ground with his Greek listeners. How much more ought we to rejoice when we hear Pope Francis, despite his flaws, preach the Gospel. …the Church “desires that all the peoples of the earth be able to meet Jesus, to experience His merciful love…" [the Church] wishes to indicate respectfully, to every man and woman of this world, the Child that was born for the salvation of all. —POPE FRANCIS, Angelus, January 6th, 2016; Zenit.org It is a matter of justice to defend the truth when it is spoken. Likewise, love does not rejoice when the truth is obscured... but is "patient" with those who do it. I submit that there are four general types of responses to Francis today: One is to jump overboard the Barque of Peter and leave the Church. That, however, is a grave mistake and puts one's salvation at risk. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. —POPE PIUS XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ), June 29, 1943; n. 41; vatican.va …We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff. —POPE BONIFACE, Unun Sanctum, 1302 Cardinal Burke provides the right mindset: I will never leave the Catholic Church. No matter what happens I intend to die a Roman Catholic. I will never be part of a schism. —Cardinal Raymond Burke, LifeSiteNews, August 22nd, 2016 The second type is to claim that everything the Pope says is gold and flawless. That is neither biblical nor doctrinally correct. It is papalotry. …the true friends are not those who flatter the Pope, but those who help him with the truth and with theological and human competence. —Cardinal Müller, Corriere della Sera, Nov. 26, 2017; quote from the Moynihan Letters, #64, Nov. 27th, 2017 The third type is to "rejoice in the truth" the Holy Father teaches, while at the same time, acknowledging that he does not speak infallibly all the time and that, in fact, he can make mistakes (just like Peter, before and after Pentecost). These mistakes, however, do not negate his authority nor the respect owed his office, and certainly do not spell the end of the Church. They can, however, constitute a trial for her, one that could last for years or decades. But even this is the permissive will of Christ, the Master Builder of the Church. Christians should bear in mind that it is Christ who guides the history of the Church. Therefore, it is not the Pope’s approach that destroys the Church. This is not possible: Christ does not allow the Church to be destroyed, not even by a Pope. If Christ guides the Church, the Pope of our day will take the necessary steps to move forward. If we are Christians, we should reason like this. —Maria Voce, President of the Focolare Movement, Vatican Insider, Dec. 23rd, 2017 This third attitude, then, is the "childlike" heart that Christ commands of His followers. Far from naivety or wishful thinking, it is the attitude of faith that it is Christ, not the Pope, who is building the Church and Divine Providence that guides her, even in difficult moments. Thus, this attitude stands behind the Petrine promises because these, too, constitute part of Sacred Tradition. It is not a question of being ‘pro-’ Pope Francis or ‘contra-’ Pope Francis. It is a question of defending the Catholic faith, and that means defending the Office of Peter to which the Pope has succeeded. —Cardinal Raymond Burke, The Catholic World Report, January 22, 2018 The fourth attitude is to approach Pope Francis (if not the entire hierarchy) with a "hermeneutic of suspicion." This attitude does not rejoice in the truth he speaks, but tries to find fault in it. Charity toward the Supreme Pontiff has a limit for them, and when that quota is reached, they impugn his motives as "evil" and "intentionally" trying to mislead the flock. This, of course, is the kind of judgment that Christ flat out condemned. Cardinal Sarah implores a different attitude: We must help the Pope. We must stand with him just as we would stand with our own father. —Cardinal Sarah, May 16th, 2016, Letters from the Journal of Robert Moynihan This attitude, when expressed publically, has led to fear-mongering and the shaking of the faith of those who only read headlines, social media, and/or forum comments. It has also caused scandal when this attitude has descended into ad hominen attacks and vitriol against the Pope (and those who give him "the benefit of the doubt") that constitutes calumny and slander. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. —n. 2477 This is not to say that Pope Francis's words have not caused pain or even scandal. Even then, this is not permission to publically attack him (and thus the unity of the Church), but to defend truth in charity and pray all the more for him. I write this to encourage those who are not commenting here and who are only reading: you cannot go wrong if you remain on the Barque of Peter. Love the Pope, but remain faithful to Christ. Honor the Pope, but stay loyal to Jesus. Pray for the Pope, and do your duty to pass on the Faith. And if you are confused, read the Catechism because Pope Francis has said to do that several times! What is the Catechism itself, if not the memory of God, the memory of his works in history and his drawing near to us in Christ present in his word, in the sacraments, in his Church, in his love? —POPE FRANCIS, Year of Faith’s International Congress on Catechesis, September 30th, 2013 Last, pray the Rosary. One of the promises Our Lady made to those who pray the Rosary is to preserve them from heresy. The Rosary places you in her personal school. She will teach, guide, and lead you to safety. She is a "personal ark" while the Church is an "institutional ark". Stay in the ark. Thanks for enduring my ramblings! Pax
Hi Mark, I can go along with a lot off what you say. I would certainly agree with you that I am vain , for instance and full of pride. I am also so sorry if I was condescending. Thank you so much for pointing this out to me I very much need all the salt of humility I can get. I am often sad on the forum because people do not point out my huge faults more often so thank you so much for pointing this out. Where I would differ from you is in the nature of truth as the Greatest charity. The problem in the Church is not in people presenting the truth in Charity to the Faithful. The greatest danger is people covering up the Truth out of simple cowardice or fear of human respect. The child abuse and sexual perversion crisis in the Church is a very good example of this. Is Cardinal Mueller wrong in pointing out the truth in what he says? Where the Dubia Cardinals? Truth is the greatest Charity. Which is why in presenting the Truth to the pharisees and Sadducees Christ gave them the greatest gift of all, the Truth. He who Himself is the Way the Truth and the Life. As to the Popes grave faults, there is a pattern here a clear path of evil he is walking down. Adolph Hitler built good roads. He helped lift his country out of a huge Depression. He had a great love for dogs. He did I am sure many other good things. But he was on a wrong trajectory. He took Germany and the world on a very wrong path. Even the devil does not lie all the time. His way is the half truth. I am sure Pope Francis does and says many good things but as Jesus said, 'It is not every one who says Lord, Lord who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven'. Luke 6:43 43No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44For each tree is known by its own fruit. Indeed, people do not gather figs from thornbushes, or grapes from brambles.… Please feel free to point out any other faults you feel I might have. I rejoice in this. I am glad that in my case at least you feel free to point out the Truth of Charity without fear of Detraction, Calumny or Rash Judgement.
If that is what you think people are doing on this forum, why are you a member? I think the reason that you have become a forum member is to reinvigorate readership to your blog which is probably floundering since a fair amount of your writing defends Pope Francis and of late, many more people view him unfavorably. Many of the posts that you have made in this thread have 'advertised' your blog. Three separate threads in the last few days are devoted to your lastest blog post. You should be happy with the exposure, but you seem defensive. Just to add, is it against the forum rules to post with the intent of advertising an offsite blog? I do remember others doing that as well..Daniel O'Connor, Emmett Reagan, Steve Walford (books), and Steve Ryan, but I think sometimes they were called out on it.
I think the best people to look at as guideposts for how we should all act is men like Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Schneider, etc. They are always respectful and charitable, BUT they are not hesitant to point out when the true Church teaching is being subverted. Souls are at stake. Charity and respect are musts, but not more important than pointing out that the truth is being twisted. We must speak up and speak up strongly. We will be judged on that as well as how charitable we were. We won't be judged on one or the other, but on both. If we don't speak up, no one will. We have all been allowed by God to see what is happening right now when most are blind. I do not wish to face Our Lord and have Him look at me and say why did you not tell others what I permitted you to see? Our faith is being trampled into dust by the Modernist coup in Rome. Now is the time to speak up. Not after they have finished laying waste to the faith. First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out. -Martin Niemoller
Well, Stephen Walford went on to get an audience with the Pope. Mark should aim a little higher. Calling some Cardinal or Bishop the Great Accuser should look good on his CV if he fancies a job in the Vatican. If he doesn't fancy moving to Italy, he could stay home and do a deal with Fr. Martin SJ to promote the rainbow rosary or the butch lady of Guadalupe. Maybe Fr. Martin would be moved to point some of his twitter follows towards Mark's blog. After all, Fr. Martin isn't just any old Jesuit. He knows what the Pope really thinks which makes him one of a very select few. Mark has made a good start by quoting Andrea Tornielli as a source proclaiming that Pope Francis has answered the dubia submitted by the four Cardinals. The opinion of a journalist who recently landed a nice job in Vatican Communications must surely carry more weight than the Cardinals of the Church who actually submitted the dubia - men with the highest qualifications in theology, philosophy, Church history and canon law. Threats of eternal damnation for schism ring rather hollow after the Vatican pulled out all the stops for the Reformation celebrations. A Vatican postage stamp, a statue in the Vatican and a Papal visit no less - all for a monk who called the Pope the AntiChrist and broke his vows to marry a nun who also broke her vows. Mere schismatics could be in line for sainthood.
Garabandal you hit it out of the park. This is magnificently said. Mary's child is right. I hope mark mallet read it.
Mary is many beautiful and awesome things but she is "NOT A NORMAL GIRL like girls today" Why is there such a feverish need to reduce her magnificent humility and radiant simplicity--her compassion and clarity and immense faith to such a mundane colorless statement? It upsets me. It offends me. She is our MOTHER.
