"Francis has been totally orthodox..can only be faulted by faulty reading"

I probably live closer to Ms Carberry than most forum members yet I never heard of MDM until I heard all the fuss about it on the radio when she was well on the way to being shown up. Just shows the power of the internet if her message had already spread overseas.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Do members here think that anything will come of the document referred to in Brian's opening post other than a "thank you for your interest" type of response.

 

Thank you.

Unfortunately an appropriate response from this pope, while essential and hoped for and prayed for, is not expected. But it's like Fr. Elijah in the novel of the same name, Truth must be preached to everyone, in season and out of season, no matter who is in error, and regardless of whether, humanly speaking, we expect a response. Souls hang in the balance.

 

Was the letter addressed to the Pope? I thought it went to individual bishops. Presumably the purpose of the letter is for the bishops to get a response from the Pope that will enable a clear, unified and universal teaching to emerge on the matters in contention. In that case, wouldn't there be some kind of united, Magisterial response rather than a statement from the Pope?

 

Actually, it was addressed to the Dean of the College of Cardinals and a copy was sent to all members of the College of Cardinals, in their native tongues, canonically and repectfully asking them to directly intervene with the pope asking him to make formal retractions and clarifications and outlining the canonical penalties if he failed to do so and it were understood in heretical ways. It was hand delivered to Cardinals Sodano, Burke and Sarah and a few others.

 

Arrogance...

 

I recall advice about not bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Kindly refute the propositions they outlined before posting more inane remarks.

(For newcomers: he is not one ;-)

 

Not a chance, Dolours. Fortunately our Church is led on earth by the Pope and the bishops who are united with him, not by various assemblies of clergy or theologians (or BrianK).

The Catechism again:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."​

 

Bringing vague out of context quotes to a deep theological debate far beyond the purview of the general audience of a catechism is poor form.

Kindly refute the propositions these highly esteemed theologians outlined before posting more inane remarks. Your quotes from the generalized Catechism do not impeach their very specific points.

You folks have yet to address any of them. You think ad hominem attack substitutes for serious discussion of gravely important issues.

Besides, this agenda was programmed into the new catechism a generation ago, to disarm today's Catholics.

Anyone who thinks Cardinal Schonborn is a "good Catholic" because of his work on the Catechism of the Catholic Church needs to read the views of the saintly master catechist Fr. John Hardon, SJ about the new catechism:

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2016/features_jan16.html

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2016/features_feb16.html

Ten Specific Reservations:

After answering these eight questions submitted to him, Father Hardon went on to submit ten specific Reservations about the “Revised Draft,” giving now his deeper reasoning for his convictions. These may be recapitulated, as follows, in his own words:

1. The “Revised Draft” is not a summary of Catholic Doctrine, but a compendium of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Theological speculation.

2. The “Revised Draft” is ambiguous throughout on the meaning of faith. It is not committed to the Catholic Church's definition of divine faith as the assent of the intellect to what God has revealed.

3. The “Revised Draft” does not teach what is clearly stated in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church is infallible.

4. The “Revised Draft” does not clearly teach that there are two sources of divine revelation, namely, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, where Sacred Tradition (like Sacred Scripture) was completed by the end of the apostolic age.

5. The “Revised Draft” is ambiguous on the causality of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ. It does not clearly teach what the Council of Trent defined, that the sacraments confer grace “ex opere operato.”

6. The “Revised Draft” in effect, accepts the erroneous theory of the Fundamental Option. Only persons who have made the fundamental option to reject God are said to be liable to eternal punishment. Thus the meaning of mortal sin is not that of the Church's universal ordinary magisterium.

7. The “Revised Draft” does not use the Vulgate text of the Bible. This is contrary to the Church's magisterial history over the centuries.

8. The “Revised Draft” does not teach, or explain, the whole matter of development of doctrine, which is carefully and precisely taught by the Second Vatican Council.

9. The “Revised Draft” leaves open for speculation most of the Church's irreversible teaching on morality.

10. The “Revised Draft” does not do justice to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. This failure is shown especially in the selective use of the conciliar texts.

Immediately after listing these ten major Reservations, Father Hardon then adds:

In the following pages [pp. 4-68], each of these ten reservations is further explained and recommended revisions are made.

* * *

This saintly Jesuit, a professor of dogmatic theology, and world renowned expert on catechisms of the Church, as well as author of his own superb catechism, was not asked to participate in the committee that authored the new catechism.

He expressed grave concerns about the new catechism, in writing and in detail, after reviewing it, to Schonborn.

His grave concerns were ignored by Schonborn.

One can better understand the gravity of these ten time bombs in the new catechism when one realizes Schonborn's hand in creating them, his position of prominence in the Church today, and the agenda that has engulfed the Church in the last three years.

See how the boldened concerns buttress the current errors of the Vatican; they were included 25 years ago to make possible what is being promoted as "Catholic" today by appealing to the " definitive" CCC.

Which gives everyone a better grasp of how long they have planned this, and the central role of men like Schonborn and Kasper in planting it's seeds.

​

 

So Brian rejects the Catechism as well as the Pope. Fair enough, but I struggle to see why he doesn't just accept he is a protestant.

 

Kindly refute the propositions these highly esteemed theologians outlined before posting more inane remarks. Your quotes from the generalized Catechism do not impeach their very specific points.

You folks have yet to address any of them. You think ad hominem attack substitutes for serious discussion of gravely important issues.

 

(For newcomers: David is not a newcomer either ;-)

 

Please, David, I thought we had put the personal attacks behind us.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the teaching authority of the Church has three pillars - Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium - which cannot contradict each other. What I gather is that there is a contradiction, or at least sufficient leeway for a contradiction to be manifested in pastoral practice. The contradicting statements from different bishops and the widespread confusion among many of the faithful is evidence that AL requires another look by the Magisterium. For example, Cardinal Schonborn's statement along the lines that all previous Church teaching must be viewed in conformity with AL conflicts with the statement by the Prefect of the CDF that AL must be viewed in conformity with all previous Church teaching. (I didn't word that very well, but I reckon you know what I mean). There's nothing Protestant about requesting that legitimate concerns be addressed.

 

So what do you expect to happen next? Will the Dean of the College of Cardinals ask all the bishops for their views on the issues raised?

 

There are a lot of prophecies to the effect that "those who should speak, will remain silent."

Unfortunately, I think we're on our own, and it's going to get far worse.

 

The first intelligent thing you said

You are on your own

Protestantism

 

One trick pony. At least you folks are predictable.

 

Stating that I don't understand why Brian doesn't just accept he is a protestant is not an attack, it is a serious question. You refer to the three pillars of the teaching authority of the Church. The problem is that the first two rely on the third. And the rejection of the third by the protestants has led to their difficulties. Brian is following their mistake.

And while I'm responding to you I will respond to Brian's complaint that some of us are not addressing the propositions of the 'esteemed theologians'. My response is 'why should we?' These matters need considerable knowledge and understanding and even if we had these, we are still in danger of getting things wrong due to pride. Fortunately, Jesus has given us a Church that will and is dealing with all these matters in a beautiful way. Sadly some do not accept this.

 

Finally you admit the truth.

You don't have any idea how gravely serious all of this is, and you're not willing or are not able to do the heavy lifting to learn why. It's easier just to follow Alinsky's rule #12.

 

Hi Padraig,
Yes, I have noticed that there can be somewhat of a "sensus fidelum" (sense of the faithful) here in this forum in what concerns both present and future events. Permit me to give an example: Many here will recall the alleged "Locutions to the World" locutions. You will recall that initially quite a few folks here were thinking them to likely be authentic (as related in the many comments here at that time), HOWEVER as time passed more and more folks here seemed to be getting a sense that things were amiss with the purported messages and prophesies contained in the alleged locutions of L.T.T.W. Sure, there were a few folks here who continued to support L.T.T.W., even after the completely failed prediction concerning the Pope when he was here in America back in late September. Yet reading through the messages here at that time, many folks here seemed to have serious reservations and doubts even prior to the failed event. And soon afterwards, the lack of predicted events proved their reservations to be true.

Add to this also the fact that in my own reporting on Locutions to the World at that time (last September), I actually used and linked to in the comments section beneath the article I wrote concerning L.T.T.W. some important information concerning Monsignor John Essef, and his reported association with L.T.T.W. which was being discussed here by a couple of specific individuals on the M.O.G. forum who knew people who were closely associated with Monsignor Essef. And so, yes I think there can be a certain "Sensus fidelum" here concerning present and future events, and add to this the fact that because of the variety of folks here, important pertinent information can be at times be provided here.

In fact, the removal of many comment sections in the popular news websites of the secular world (like CNN, MSN etc...) is something that I personally deplore, simply because one often can learn more about the given subject through the comments of others, than in the actual news articles themselves. But sorry I? am digressing, as this is a whole other subject....

-May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire