Thank you Carol. Can you tell us what you woke up and were looking at in the scripture, which led you to the 3 /18/ 20 date?
The latest from Mark Mallett: ON VATICAN FUNKINESS Posted on October 22, 2019 by Mark WHAT happens as one gets nearer to the eye of a hurricane? The winds get exponentially faster, flying dust and debris multiply, and dangers quickly escalate. So it is in this present Storm as the Church and the world near the Eye of this Spiritual Hurricane. This past week, tumultuous events are unfolding all over the world. The kindling of war has been lit in the Middle East by the withdrawal of American troops. Back in the U.S., the President is increasingly facing the prospect of impeachment as social upheaval foments. Radical left-wing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was re-elected in Canada spelling an uncertain future for freedom of speech and religion, already well under attack there. In the Far East, tensions between China and Hong Kong continue to mount as trade talks between the Asian nation and America wobble. Kim Yong Un, signaling perhaps a major military event, just rode through the “sacred mountains” on a white horse like a rider of the apocalypse. Northern Ireland legalized abortion and same-sex marriage today. And unrest and protests in several nations around the globe, aimed mostly at rising costs and increasing taxes, broke out simultaneously: As 2019 enters its final quarter, there have been large and often violent demonstrations in Lebanon, Chile, Spain, Haiti, Iraq, Sudan, Russia, Egypt, Uganda, Indonesia, Ukraine, Peru, Hong Kong, Zimbabwe, Colombia, France, Turkey, Venezuela, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Brazil, Malawi, Algeria and Ecuador, among other places. —Tyler Cowen, Bloomberg Opinion; October 21st, 2019; finance.yahoo.com Most notably, however, is the bizarre synod taking place in Rome where issues, which perhaps should be handled internally (as they are in other countries where there are priest shortages), have been brought to the highest level with implications for the universal Church. From a heterodox working document to seemingly pagan rituals, to the casting of so-called “idols” into the Tiber… it all sounds like apostasy coming to a head. And this amid more allegations of financial corruption in Vatican City. In other words, everything is unfolding as expected. The popes and Our Lady (and of course Scripture) have been saying for well over a century that these things were coming. For the past 15 years, I have been writing about a coming Storm and Global Revolution, a Spiritual Tsunami that would sweep through the world. Here we are. But as I stressed at the conference I spoke at in California this past weekend, this is not the end of the world, but the hard labor pains that we are beginning to pass through. And then will come the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of a Mary, an “era of peace” in which the entire People of God will be born through the laboring of both this “woman clothed with the sun” and the Church. Yes, a miracle was promised at Fatima, the greatest miracle in the history of the world, second only to the Resurrection. And that miracle will be an era of peace which has never really been granted before to the world. —Mario Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, papal theologian for Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, October 9th, 1994, The Apostolate’s Family Catechism, p. 35 Then, say the early Church Fathers, the labors of the Church will cease and a time of peace, justice, and rest will be given. …there should follow on the completion of six thousand years [which, according to the Church Fathers, is the year 2000 A.D.] , as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years… And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God… —St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.; Church Doctor), De Civitate Dei, Bk. XX, Ch. 7, Catholic University of America Press Fr. Charles Arminjon (1824-1885) summarized the Church Fathers in this way: The most authoritative view, and the one that appears to be most in harmony with Holy Scripture, is that, after the fall of the Antichrist, the Catholic Church will once again enter upon a period of prosperity and triumph. —The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, p. 56-57; Sophia Institute Press This “restoration of all things in Christ,” as Pope Pius X called it, is also echoed in many approved apparitions around the world, including Our Lady of Good Success: In order to free men from the bondage to these heresies, those whom the merciful love of my most Holy Son has designated to effect the restoration, will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence of the just. There will be occasions when all will seem lost and paralyzed. This then will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration. —January 16th, 1611; miraclehunter.com I say all this to give you authentic hope. Because, at present, it is hard not to be consumed by the labour pains rather than the coming birth. When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world. (John 16:21) WHAT ARE WE TO DO? Still, several readers are asking me to comment on the current synod and the direction the Pope is taking the Church. “What are we to do? How are we to respond?” The reason I haven’t said much to date about the present synod is because, well, we’ve been through this before. If you’ll recall, when the Extraordinary Synod on the Family took place in 2014, there was a “working document” then that also stirred controversy with unorthodox propositions. The outcry in the Catholic media was no different: “The Pope is misleading the Church”, “the Synod will destroy the entire moral order”, and so on. However, the Pope was clear about how he wanted the process to unfold: everything was to be on the table including, for better or worse, heterodox proposals. Let no one say: ‘I cannot say this, they will think this or this of me…’. It is necessary to say with parrhesia all that one feels… it is necessary to say all that, in the Lord, one feels the need to say: without polite deference, without hesitation.—POPE FRANCIS, Greeting to the Synod Fathers during the First General Congregation of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, October 6, 2014 So, given that there were some liberal prelates there, it was disappointing but not surprising to hear heretical concepts being proposed. The Pope, as promised, did not speak until the end of the synod, and when he did, it was powerful. I’ll never forget it because, as the synod was unfolding, I kept hearing in my heart that we are living the letters to the churches in Revelation. When Pope Francis finally spoke at the end of the gathering, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing: just as Jesus chastised five of the seven churches in Revelation, so too, Pope Francis made five rebukes to the universal Church. These including a rebuke to those who “in the name of a deceptive mercy [bind] the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that [treat] the symptoms and not the causes and the roots…the so-called “progressives and liberals.” Those, he said, who want to “come down off the Cross, to please the people… to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it…”; those who “neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it].”[1] His rebuke also swung to the other side of the spectrum, to those with a “hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word… within the law… it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals”; those who “transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick.” In other words, those who are judgmental and condemnatory rather than imitators of Christ’s mercy. cont'd below
cont'd from above Then, he made a closing remark that garnered a standing ovation that lasted several minutes. At this point, I no longer heard the pope; within my soul, I could hear Jesus speaking. It was like thunder: The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”. —POPE FRANCIS, closing remarks on the Synod; Catholic News Agency, October 18th, 2014 (my emphasis) In other words, brothers and sisters, I am waiting to see what unfolds from this latest synod before passing judgment. All the play-by-play panic I read in Catholic conservative media does little more, from my perspective, than actually create more confusion and rash judgment (if these synods took place 200 years ago, the faithful wouldn’t know a thing until months later). It’s all creating a kind of mob mentality where unless one “condemns”, bashes the pope, tears his robes and throws statues in the Tiber, one is somehow less than Catholic. It’s vanity rather than the childlike faith necessary to enter the Kingdom. I repeat again the wise words of St. Catherine of Siena: Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him… I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him. —St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”) By this, she means continued obedience to the faith—not obedience to non-magisterial statements, much less the imitation of sinful behavior of our shepherds. Case in point: I strongly disagree with the Pope on his non-magisterial embrace of a certain group of scientists who promote man-made “global warming” (see Climate Confusion). That “science,” promoted by the United Nations, has been fraught with fraud, riddled with socialist ideology, and at its core, is anti-human. I simply disagree with the Pope and pray that he will see the dangers of Communism lurking behind the entire Climate Change movement. But this respectful disagreement does not mean I think the Pope is a “demon” or “perfectly possessed,” as one man who runs a “traditionalist” website said to me. Nor does it mean by encouraging my readers to stay on the Barque of Peter and to remain on “the rock” that I am “blindly leading readers into a deception,” as another reader stated. No, quite the opposite. Remaining in communion with Peter does not mean communing with his weakness and faults but bearing them through our prayers, love, and if necessary, filial correction (cf. Gal 6:2). And that means remaining in communion with Jesus and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is on [Peter] that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the churches’ oneness… a primacy is given to Peter and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one chair… If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the church? —”On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, n. 4; The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 220-221 REMAINING ON THE ROCK, NOT THE STUMBLING STONE Let me give you the simplest example possible of how to navigate all the funkiness going on at the Vatican. After Peter was declared the rock on which Christ would build the Church, Peter not only fought against the idea of Jesus being crucified but ended up denying the Lord altogether. Three times. But neither of these things diminished the authority of Peter’s office nor the power of the Keys of the Kingdom. They did, however, diminish the witness and credibility of the man himself. And yet… none of the Apostles rejected Peter. They still gathered together with him in the Upper Room to wait for the Holy Spirit. That is a powerful teaching. Even if a pope were to deny Jesus Christ, we ought to hold fast to Sacred Tradition and remain faithful to Jesus unto death. Indeed, St. John did not “blindly follow” the first pope into his denial, but turned in the opposite direction, walked to Golgotha and remained steadfast beneath the Cross at the risk of His life. This is what I intend to do, by God’s grace, even should a pope deny Christ himself. My faith is not in Peter, but Jesus. I follow Christ, not a man. But since Jesus has bestowed His authority upon the Twelve and their successors, I know that to break communion with them, but especially Peter, would be to break with Christ who is ONE in His mystical Body, the Church. The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the Vicar of Christ, that is by the pope. And whoever is against the pope is, ipso facto, outside the Church. —Cardinal Robert Sarah, Corriere della Sera, October 7th, 2019; americamagazine.org 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 cont'd below
cont'd from above If a pope is confusing or your bishop is silent, you and I can still shout the Gospel from the rooftops. Undoubtedly, their silence and even personal unfaithfulness constitute a trial, even a grave trial for us. If that is the case, then it’s because Jesus wants to be glorified more through the laity at this hour than the clergy. But we will never glorify Jesus if we ourselves become a source of disunity. We will never glorify Christ if we act like those apostles of old who panicked and flailed in the midst of a storm that threatened to sink them. 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… Yes, I think this is the main cause, not being rooted in faith, not being sure that God sent Christ to found the Church and that he will fulfil his plan through history through people who make themselves available to him. This is the faith we must have in order to be able to judge anyone and anything that happens, not only the Pope. —Maria Voce, President of Focolare, Vatican Insider, Dec. 23rd, 2017 If Francis is confusing, find a statement of his that is not (such as here). If you can’t, then find a statement by another pope, magisterial document or the Catechism. People say to me all the time, “There is such confusion!” and I respond, “But I am not confused. The teachings of the Church are not hidden in a vault. I own a Catechism. The Papacy is not one pope, much less the expression of his own personal whims and thoughts; he is simply the guarantor of obedience to the Faith through all the centuries until the end of time.” 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.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882 Popes have made and make mistakes and this is no surprise. Infallibility is reserved ex cathedra [“from the seat” of Peter, that is, proclamations of dogma based on Sacred Tradition]. No popes in the history of the Church have ever made ex cathedra errors.—Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi, Theologian, in a personal letter to me In fact, I’m going to be blunt. Some of you are angry because you want the pope to fix the world. You are angry because you want the pope to take up your arms and do your work to evangelize, exhort, and transform the culture. Maybe I’m just cynical, but in my thirty years of work in evangelization, I have never looked much to the hierarchy to get behind my ministry. Liberalism, modernism, fear, cowardice, political correctness, clericalism… I’ve experienced all of it, and through it, have learned that it doesn’t matter when it comes to my own calling. Jesus will not judge me on what my shepherds have done, but whether I was faithful with the talent he gave me—or if I buried it in the ground. The saints and martyrs did not wait to hear whether the pope was faithful or not in his daily work. They got on with their own callings, and in the process, many did more to change the world than any pope ever has or probably ever will. At the beginning of this recent Synod, there was a service in the Vatican Gardens. The pope looked somberly on as rather strange rituals unfolded. And then it came time for Francis to speak. Perhaps instead of lending any credibility to what just took place, he set his remarks aside. Then he turned the entire gathering toward the most preeminent prayer in the Church, the Our Father. And that prayer ended the odd gathering with the words, “deliver us from evil.” Yes Lord, deliver us from evil. But grant me the grace to be the Good that I was born to be, at this time, this hour and the strength to persevere to the end.
I am dismayed to learn Fr Martin has stated: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...il&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-fed6bfd0d4-404004705 Wow, just wow! What about a pagan idol in St Peter's do people not see??? If it's not a representative of Christ they are bowing to, it has no business. And on altars yet. You gotta be kidding. A Brazilian bishop stated it's a pagan idol. Was that statement not taken seriously?
I do not take his writing with any more seriousness than any other lay person. He is entitled to his opinion, but I give him no more merit than someone sitting next to me in church. His writing is like fingernails clawing a chalkboard. Is the title 'On Vatican Funkiness' supposed to be a hip, enlightened way of looking at what is transpiring in this synod?
I always appreciate Mark for his clarity of expression and his resolute, but calm demeanor. For my part, when I express an "enough is enough" post, I usually limp to the finish with a Safe in the Barque of Peter finale. It’s all creating a kind of mob mentality where unless one “condemns”, bashes the pope, tears his robes and throws statues in the Tiber, one is somehow less than Catholic. Mark, I believe throwing idols into the Tiber is rather brave and has nothing to do with a mob mentality. The saints and martyrs did not wait to hear whether the pope was faithful or not in his daily work. They got on with their own callings... I agree with the essence of what Mark means, but he should also realize that only in the last 20 years has the daily words of any Pope been so readily available. And I've never known any Pope who has spoken out of both sides of his mouth before. I can't judge the Holy Father's soul, but I find such duplicity disturbing. Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for Pope Francis now and at the hour of his death, Amen! And please don't forget about me!
Those statues if one can call them that, have no place in a Catholic Church. What those men did in throwing idols into the tiber is a great service to us all. My fear would be that if this is not checked they may start appearing in Churches all over the world. What an outrage to the Blessed Sacrament. May the Lord forgive us all.
It would be interesting whp paid their air fare, room and board. I'll bet it wasn't the Lakota themselves.
I was turned off as soon as I saw that title. How could you possibly describe pagan worship, and the idols that were paraded around, and placed before the altar of Our Lord, as funkiness? Perhaps the tile should have been, 'On Vatican Offensiveness'. We did not need to wait until the end of the Synod to know that pagan worship does not belong in a Catholic church, or the Vatican garden. I understand Mark's loyalty to Pope Francis, but it is not helpful to minimize the pagan activities surrounding the Synod as something funky.
Lumena, I have been sort of tormenting over this for awhile now and asking God what I should do but the only answer that I think I have received is to stick with what I have stated so far. If something changes I will be sure to post about it, iow if I am given another "sign". Right now, the message is to keep praying and be prepared spiritually, that is all. Mario, I agree with what you have stated here. I have yet to read all of Mark's article but I think that he probably feels that he is a victim of mob mentality in fact that he has been pressured to be more critical of Pope Francis. I do understand the stance that Mark has taken on the pope but I think that you are right that throwing these pagan idols into the Tiber "is rather brave and has nothing to do with a mob mentality" and you were smart to realize that these men have acted similar to many saints and martyrs that we know. I think that is what you were pointing out, if not I just did. These men "got on with their own callings" but I suppose that Mark does not see it that way. For years now, I have said that Mark Mallett is not going to get everything right, none of us are but I do believe that he may be fearful that someone or some group of people may take things too far. Although, imho this act of disposing of these pagan idols was absolutely justified. PS - I tend not to read much of Mark Mallett's writings, btw. I find that my time is far better spent in prayer.
Mark M. says that people ask him what he thinks about the synod. He should answer them honestly and say that wooden pagan images of a fertility deity were honored and included in several prayer events at the Vatican. The pagan images were housed in a Catholic Church. The pagan deity is being introduced in western culture through a child's animated film available free through netflix. This is in opposition to what Catholics believe. Catholics should shun this incursion of paganism into our Catholic faith and make reparation to Our Lord for the offense caused to Him.
I think we can assume that very few clerics are going to back the men who dumped the pagan idols in the Tiber River. I noticed a video today that I have not watched yet in which Archbishop Vigano was given an award, I'll post it here also. It reminded me of how bad things are that this clergyman has had to remain in hiding for over a year now. I think that these are reasons why the Warning is going to happen. We can demonstrate our opposition to what is occurring only to a certain point it seems. We need to continue to pray for God's help. Oct. 22, 2019 Elementary Pastoral Sense Absent From Amazonian Statue Controversy COMMENTARY: Since symbols convey so much more than words, Vatican officials should have clarified exactly what the statue means, before allowing it to be deployed in a paraliturgical context. Father Raymond J. de Souza | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ense-absent-from-amazonian-statue-controversy The disputed Amazonian statue might be dismissed as a small distraction, but it is an important thing made more significant by a lack of elementary pastoral sense. As Catholics ought to know better than anyone else — all the more so Vatican officials — symbols convey much more than words. That’s why the liturgy is a ritual employing symbols rather than an essay employing syllogisms. That provides the proper lens through which to see what will become a lasting image of the Amazon synod, the wooden statue of the naked pregnant Amazonian woman, first deployed in the curious tree-planting ceremony in the Vatican gardens, latterly resident at the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina and carried in procession during the Amazonian via Crucis, and now floating out to sea in the Tiber, where it was thrown by anonymous thieves who thought it had no place in a Catholic church. The theft and throwing of the image into the river was wrong. But I don’t share the view of papal biographer Austen Ivereigh that it was the akin to ISIS terrorists destroying statues of the Blessed Mother, precisely because even at this late date, no one can say what exactly the statue is supposed to be or what religion, if any, it belongs to. In light of the recent theft and aquatic disposal, Ivereigh has downgraded the Marian-theme to a “mother-nature effigy.” The same “effigy” theme was picked up by editorial director for all Vatican news, Andrea Tornielli, who spoke of it as an “effigy of motherhood and the sacredness of life” that is “a traditional symbol for the native people which represents their tie to what St. Francis called ‘mother earth.’” Hence the confusion endures. St. Francis praised God “through our Sister Mother Earth.” The tie was to God, not to the earth. St. Francis himself would have insisted that an image used in prayer be a sacred one, the Blessed Mother, not motherhood in general nor mother earth. Sometimes — not always, but sometimes — a simple parish priest’s experience might prove helpful at the Vatican. Parish priests are asked all the time — at weddings and funerals especially — to include some image, item or song dear to those attending. Even a young priest knows enough to ask, “What does this mean?” Depending on the answer, he knows to say that it might find a place elsewhere, but not in the church. The excluded item need not be offensive to Catholic teaching. Consider a national flag, customary to drape over a coffin for soldiers and veterans. It is an honorable thing, even a kind of sacred symbol, but it is not Catholic. And so it is supposed to be removed upon arrival at the church and replaced with the pall for the funeral, which represents baptism. The flag is put back as the coffin leaves the church. A similar example: A few years back I was asked whether it might be permissible to include native Canadian drumming in a liturgical service. I grew up in Alberta and had seen that indigenous drumming a thousand times, on occasion finding it quite welcome. It was not obviously contrary to the Catholic faith, but I did not know what it meant. Was it a summoning of the people to a solemn occasion? Was it a hymn of thanksgiving to God? Was it intended to conjure the spirits of the dead? I didn’t know what it meant, so I asked. Depending on the answer, I said, we might be able to include it, or it be might be inadmissible. In this particular case, the person asking did not know what it meant, so we proceeded no farther. The problem with the Amazonian statue was that no one could — or would — explain what it was. Ivereigh, offering some helpful spin doctoring, suggested that the Vatican should declare the two figures a depiction of the Visitation and be done with it. That would have been fine, if it were true. It is quite possible to include bad or ambiguous art, if its meaning is clarified. Papal audiences in the Paul VI hall have taken place for decades in front of a massive, mystifying and, to me, quite horrible bronze installation. But everyone is informed that, no matter how off-putting it is, it is the Risen Christ. No controversy, and no one absconding with it in the early dawn to throw it in the river. (Though it would it take a crane and fleet of transport trucks.) So when people asked about the statue meant, an answer should have been ready. The indigenous people of the Amazon have seen Catholic images of the Blessed Virgin Mary for centuries, so it’s possible that they expressed the same faith in their own artistic forms. Was it an image of “Our Lady of the Amazon” or some other Catholic image? “There is nothing to know. It is an indigenous woman who represents life,” said Father Giacomo Costa, part of the synod communications teams. “It is a feminine figure [which] is neither pagan nor sacred.” That was not helpful. If it’s not sacred, why was it included in a prayer service to mark the feast of St. Francis of Assisi in the presence of the Holy Father? I might treasure a painting of my ancestors, but I wouldn’t use it a paraliturgical rite. Paolo Ruffini, the prefect of Vatican communications dicastery, said that he sees the figure as “representing life,” which is basically saying that it is a fertility (life) symbol, in different words. The Catholic press bent over backwards to offer various accounts of something apparently so mysterious that it could not be straightforwardly explained by the people who thought it important enough to bring it across the oceans. The secular press was not so accommodating, and said flat-out that it was an “indigenous fertility symbol,” in the words of The Associated Press. That being clarified, what was it doing in a side chapel of Santa Maria in Traspontina? Generally, that would not be allowed. Even photographs of the deceased during a funeral are not to be put in the sanctuary or before the altar. Certainly an indigenous fertility symbol — which, if “not pagan” at least hints in that direction, with perhaps touches of the superstitious — has no place in the side chapel of a church. It is true that the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina — on the days that I visited it during the synod — has been treated less like a church than a convention hall, with various booths set up along the perimeter of the nave. It’s not much of a defense to say that the church was being used in the manner of a social or environmental policy convention, but at least it is better than being used for purposes directly forbidden by the First Commandment. The whole episode, from the beginning, has been deeply regrettable. Clarity would have avoided disturbing those who were legitimately disturbed, and also indicated to what purposes the effigy could have been used. Instead, a deliberate ambiguity was promoted by those who were responsible for the information, allowing the impression to fester that something akin to idol worship was going on in the heart of Rome. I don’t actually think that was the case. But it should not have been hard to say that clearly, directly and unambiguously. The responsibility for the theft and disposal lies with those who recorded themselves in the act, but without the courage of showing their faces. The responsibility for the enduring confusion about the effigy lies with those responsible for the official synod communications. The synod has not been served well. *** "Why Vatican whistleblower Viganò exemplifies what it means to be 'Catholic' today Published on Oct 21, 2019 MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, October 21, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Vatican whistleblower Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has received an award from a U.S. Catholic group for his defense of the faith by exposing the cover-up of clerical abuse in the highest echelons of the Church. The “Msgr. Alphonse S. Popek Award” was bestowed on the former apostolic nuncio to the United States by the St. Gregory VII Chapter of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) on Saturday. John-Henry Westen, Editor-in-chief and co-founder of LifeSiteNews, accepted the award on behalf of the Archbishop who has been in hiding since publishing his testimony last year. "All of those who battle for life, family, and faith inside the Church today, if they are doing it properly, are doing it out of love, love for the Church, yes, but also love for the Pope," said Westen during a speech he gave after accepting the award on Viganò's behalf. Westen said that Archbishop Viganò "exemplifies" not only what it means to be "Catholic" today, but one of "great courage." "
I undertand, Carol, but if you feel that it would be acceptable to do so, you could PM me. This is what I am wondering today: Pope Pius X said he saw in a vision a Pope "of the same name" having to leave Rome over the bodies of his dead Confreres. Pope Pius name was Giuseppe which is also translates "Joseph" . So the vision he had (twice) could refer to Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Emeritus Benedict. I am sure I am not the first person to theorise this / come to this conclusion. Here is an excerpt from a Remnant Article, the whole of which can be found here: https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0228-siscoe-bishop-dressed-in-white.htm Quote: "It is interesting to note that Pope St. Pius X had two visions that were similar to the Fatima Vision of Sister Lucy. In 1909, during an audience with members of the Franciscan Order, St. Pius X had a vision of a future pope fleeing Rome. He said: "What I have seen is terrifying! Will I be the one, or will it be a successor? What is certain is that the Pope will leave Rome and, in leaving the Vatican, he will have to pass over the dead bodies of his priests!" Just before he died Pope St. Pius X had another similar vision, in which he saw a future pope of the same name fleeing over the bodies of his brethren, before being killed himself. "I have seen one of my successors, of the same name who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death”." End Quote[/QUOTE]
Cardinal Turkson says ordination of married men may get further study CNA).- Cardinal Peter Turkson said Monday that the ordination of married men will likely be the subject of further study for the universal Church after the Amazon synod. “This issue will probably be made the subject matter of a more detailed study of the issue with view to the Church taking a consistent position, not only in view of the Amazon, but in view of the universal Church,” Turkson told EWTN News Nightly Oct. 22. During the special assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Church’s life and ministry in the Pan-Amazonian region, being held in Rome Oct. 6-27, several bishops have proposed the possibility of the ordination to the priesthood of so-called viri probati – a term used to refer to mature, married men – for ministry in remote areas of the Amazon. Turkson, the Prefect of the Vatican’s the Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, said that the challenges in the Amazonian region are similar to challenges faced in other parts of the world. “The situations in the Amazon are pretty similar to those in the Congo. In both cases, accessibility is very difficult and reduced, communication is tough, and if you want to get to places either by road or by river those challenges are there,” said Turkson, who is originally from Ghana. The African cardinal explained that in the Congo trained catechists are leaders in their local communities, who preach the Word of God, baptize, bury the dead, and serve as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. “But in that case, the guys in the synod here are listening to that and they say that is fine, but they can still can't celebrate the Eucharist,” he said. “They are looking for someone who can, you know, anoint the sick, listen to confessions, celebrate the Eucharist with people, and that, of course, requires ordained ministry, for which, the examples in Africa then come short.” Turkson’s assessment was underscored during a synodal press conference on Tuesday by Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, Archbishop of Kinshasa, Republic of Congo. Besunguis participating in the Amazon synod as a representative for the African church, and especially the Congo River basin, which, he said, shares several ecological, political, and pastoral problems with the Amazon region. Besungu reiterated Turkson’s assessment, saying that “the Amazon is very similar to the Congo basin.” At a Vatican press conference Oct. 22, Cardinal Besungu said that the African church has organized REBAC, the Ecclesial Network of the Congo Basin Forest, a network similar to REPAM, the South American group that is a driving force behind the Amazon synod. REPAM, a group backed by the bishops’ conferences in Latin America, describes itself as an advocacy organization for the rights and dignity of indigenous people in the Amazon. The network has been involved in preparations and events leading up to and during the synodal assembly. REPAM’s president, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, holds the position of relator-general of the Amazon synod. In a meeting between REPAM and REBAC in 2017, held in Brazil, the Church representatives participated in two hour celebration of Mother Earth led by an indigenous woman in which “participants gathered around a tree with many symbols around it,” including a Mayan calendar. “The aim of this celebration was to connect participants with nature,” according to CPAL, the conference of Jesuit provincials for Latin America and the Carribean. “Many of them believe that they now have a better understanding of the message of Pope Francis in Laudato Si.” Cardinal Besungu said that the church in the Congo prioritized “inculturation of the Gospel” in response to a perception following the country’s independence that the Catholic Church was seen as an outside force in the immediate post-colonial era. The most evident result of inculturation in the Congo is a “ritual of the Eucharist which is our own,” Besungu said. “In our country, the Eucharist is a real feast.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ied-men-may-be-subject-of-further-study-22245
He says the synod is, 'Funky', and that the Pope may be a little confused. In the Popes Defense at being present at a Pagan Ritual Mark reckons he looked a little put out. He recokns we should wait and see what the Synod might come with I'm afraid I 've given up on Mark.
I think I have given up on Mark as well. Passing off this Synod as 'funky' really hit a nerve with me. It is very disappointing that he is still sitting on that fence.
He is a very good Catholic. His family has gone through a lot. But as far as his writings are concerned, I am afraid I have given up the ghost and lost all confidence. I expect a Prophet to thunder and to speak the truth to power. I am afraid Mark's voice has sunk to a hoarse whisper. If the likes of Raymond arroyo and Michael Voris can thunder I don't see why Mark can't.
