Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee.
– Eph. 5:14
Despite the tremendously destructive threat posed by the Synod on the Family, it has accomplished – even before its completion – something of real value: it has given the entire world a front-row seat in the Modernist operating theater as they attempt to empty a well-established Church teaching of its authentic meaning and replace it with what can only be described as a diabolical lie. Day by day, more faithful Catholics are waking up to the fact that the Church’s hierarchy has become infested with an intellectual and moral corruption of truly biblical proportions. And for that awakening, we should be genuinely thankful.
Now that we can all see how the Modernist prelate operates – how he twists the meaning of words, exchanging clarity with duplicity; how he places his accomplices in key positions to ensure a predetermined outcome while paying lip service to openness and dialogue; how he cloaks his actions in secrecy while claiming to promote transparency – we would be fools if we failed to acknowledge the obvious traces of his nefarious work all about us. For this is by no means the Modernist’s first rodeo, nor shall it be his last.
Of all those changes bearing the marks of Modernist corrosion which have occurred in the Catholic Church over the last 50 years, one in particular stands out by virtue of its close analogy to the matter of the so-called “divorced and re-married”: the new ecumenism. Even a cursory examination of the version of ecumenism which became popular after Vatican II shows all the tell-tale signs of manipulation and perversion which we currently see being applied to the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of marriage, the objective sinfulness of adulterous and homosexual acts, and the requirement of true repentance and hatred of sin for justification.
The reason for the success of any Modernist undertaking is because, at some level, it appeals to the heart of the lay faithful in its desire for something that is essentially good. Now, all Catholics desire to see an end of the schism and heresy by which our Orthodox and Protestant brethren have cut themselves off from communion with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, authentic Catholic teaching, such as that set forth in Pope Pius XI’s 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, clearly states that such a reunion cannot be accomplished unless and until the schismatics and heretics renounce the errors which separated them in the first place and submit to the magisterial, sacerdotal, and pastoral authority of the Catholic Church. After condemning at length the many errors threatening to enter the Church through an ill-conceived pan-Christian ecumenism inspired by a misinterpretation of Our Lord’s prayer “that they all may be one” (John 17:21), Pius XI writes:
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the Mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly” (De Cath. Ecclesiae unitate, 6). The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills” (Ibid). For since the Mystical Body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one (1 Cor. 12:12), compacted and fitly joined together (Eph. 4:16), it were foolish and out of place to say that the Mystical Body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head (cf. Eph. 5:30; 1:22).
Despite this clear instruction, the traditional teaching was effectively abandoned by nearly the entire prelature – sometimes explicitly – after Vatican II. Cardinal Walter Kasper, for example, once infamously opined:
Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would be “converted” and return to being “Catholics.” This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.
This was not a random, off-the-cuff comment from some obscure prelate. On the contrary, Cardinal Kasper was President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity from 2001 to 2010, and this was the modus operandi of that dicastery under his direction. To clarify this position further, he added:
The Catholic commitment to ecumenism is not based on wanting to draw all Christians into the Catholic fold, nor does it seek to create a new church, drawing on the best of each of the ecumenical partners.
He certainly was not alone in this view. Pope John Paul II himself expressed essentially the same sentiment in his 1995 Encyclical entitled Ut Unum Sint, i.e. “That They Be One” – quoting the very same passage Pope Pius XI said was being used to promote a false ecumenism which threatened to undermine the integrity of the Catholic faith.
To be perfectly fair, one would have to engage in a very lengthy and detailed discussion to explain what, exactly, Pope John Paul II was promoting in that document and how it can be seen as consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church, just as one would have to enter into an equally lengthy discussion to determine the real meaning of Unitatis Redintegratio, the text on ecumenism promulgated at the Second Vatican Council. But to do so would run the very real risk of missing the point, i.e., that such a discussion – a “hermeneutic,” if you will – should not be necessary at all. The reams of paper which have been spent on interpreting these texts merely help to underscore the fact that the clarity and logical consistency of the authentic Magisterium on this point has become so thoroughly muddled in the documents produced at and since Vatican II that anyone promoting the false ecumenism explicitly proscribed by Pope Pius XI can now do so with impunity.
Observe that we have a nearly exact analogy with regards to the reception of Holy Communion by the so-called “divorced and re-married”: All Catholics desire to see everyone living in a state of grace and therefore capable of receiving Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Nonetheless, authentic Catholic teaching requires that everyone – without exception – living in an adulterous and objectively sinful union must repent, discontinue the sinful behavior, and receive absolution through the Sacrament of Confession before being allowed to receive Holy Communion. The Council of Trent is so clear on this point that it places the penalty of excommunication on anyone who publicly maintains the contrary (Session 13, Canon 11):
lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.
Yet, despite this very clear teaching, we see it being abandoned by nearly one quarter of the bishops currently attending the Synod on the Family, with some of them spouting theological garbage the likes of which would have resulted in their immediate dismissal in a more orthodox age. And not a few of them express genuine surprise when confronted with the scandal such comments cause among the faithful. We know that the surprise is genuine because what has been called the “Kasper Proposal” is really little more than the analogous extension of the policy which has been adopted regarding the Church’s relationship to schismatic and heretical bodies. That is to say, they are no longer viewed as having a need to be called to repentance of their error and conversion to the One True Faith. Instead, they are to be engaged with in dialogue, in a spirit of mutually self-critical compromise, as part of an ostensibly already-existing communion within the one (though regretfully fragmented and separated) Church.
The faithful have ingested that particular bit of Modernist poison with relatively little dyspepsia over the last 50 years. Why should they balk now that the same thing is being done to the Sacrament of Marriage?
Of course, we can and should continue to pray that Pope Francis will produce a text at the conclusion of the Synod which will confirm the traditional teaching and proscribe the many errors we have seen emerge as the poisoned fruit of these three weeks of discussion. But let’s not blind ourselves to the almost inevitable outcome: more muddled obfuscation which will effectively overturn the thing it claims to uphold and permit the thing it pretends to prohibit.
The lesson to be learned from this examination is not that one who objects to the notion of unrepentant adulterers and active homosexuals being allowed to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the Blessed Host should also object to the notion of viewing unrepentant schismatic and heretical bodies as being in communion with the Catholic Church. That much should be obvious to all who frequent these pages. Instead, it is an invitation to widen our horizon.
There is, at present, a certain momentum which should not be squandered. For the first time in 50 years, the Catholic laity is in a position to see behind the curtain which has been concealing the machinations of those intent upon conforming the Church to the world rather than conforming the world to the Church. By the providential design of God, their devices and stratagems have been exposed to the scorn and derision of the world. Now, therefore, is the time for an unfettered examination of the many errors of the post-conciliar era with a view towards identifying and correcting the ambiguity and equivocation, the dubiety and vagueness which plague the documents of that most fateful of Ecumenical Councils.
Let us all – professors and intellectuals, journalists and bloggers, catechists and pewsitters alike – seize upon of the sudden, terrifying awareness which this Synod has generated among the faithful Catholic laity to aid us in accomplishing that end.
Matthew Karmel is the nom de plume of a teacher, freelance writer and translator living in Zurich, Switzerland with his wife and four children. A lifelong Catholic, he is also the author of the blog The Radical Catholic.
Glad to see Mortalium Animos getting wider exposure. It is the most important encyclical of the 20th century IMO.
FYI, Kasper also said this:
“We should, of course, ask ourselves what does “tradition” mean in the theological sense, and in so doing, it is necessary to distinguish between the one Tradition and the many traditions. The ecumenical openness of the Second Vatican Council is not a break with Tradition in the theological sense of the word; but it is certainly an intentional modification of individual traditions, for the most part relatively recent.
Thus, it is indisputable that the Council consciously went beyond the defensive and prohibitive assertions of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928) and, in this sense, made a qualitative leap. Understood in this way, tradition and innovation are not in opposition. (emphasis added)”
So, he admits Vatican II “went beyond” Mortalium Animos – and justifies it by writing off this encyclical as an “individual tradition”, a “relatively recent” one at that!
This is how they do it, how they’ve always done it.
SYNOD OF THE LAITY
Yes, right on! The recent occasions of bishops openly promoting Modernism has created an opportunity for traditional Catholics to discredit these Modernist prelates in the eyes of more and more Catholics.
Yet I believe we need more than articles on blogs and in newspapers to take advantage of this moment. We need to create EVENTS that will be covered in the media.
I believe that traditional Catholics should institute a Synod of the Laity.
I believe the writers on the OnePeterFive blog, who have many friends and connections in the traditional Catholic world, and who have much expertise in theology, could play a key role in organizing a Synod of the Laity.
A Synod of the Laity could function just like the Synod of the Bishops, except being organized entirely by Catholic laity (traditional ones) and having only Catholic laity (traditional ones) as participants.
Just like the Synod of the Bishop, the Synod of the Laity would meet to discuss issues, to vote on propositions, and to produce an advisory document to be delivered the pope, bishops, and the whole Church.
The Synod of the Laity could meet once a year, or more or less frequently.
The Synod of the Laity could carry out its meetings online. There are no-cost web sites that allow groups of people to discuss matters online and vote online. But sometimes the Synod of the Laity could meet in the real world too, perhaps in Rome (not at the Vatican).
The Synod of the Laity could not claim to be the voice of all of the laity. Most of the Catholic laity are liberal, moderate or indifferent. We would not allow such lay persons to participate in the Synod of the Laity. Even so, if 300-500 or more lay Catholics meet together and issue an opinion on a matter, the bishops and the pope and the whole Church, and the media, are likely to pay attention, even if all the lay Catholics involved are Tradition-minded Catholics.
Francis has stressed listening, humility and decentralization in his ministry. Those values fit well with a Synod of the Laity.
Screening would be done online so that only Tradition-minded lay Catholics will be allowed to participate in the Synod of the Laity. Lay persons would apply online, and would be required to agree to a statement of unchangeable fundamentals of the Catholic Faith. (If liberal lay Catholics want to start their own synod, they are free to do so.)
It will be important to get lay participants from a variety of nations.
The Catholic doctrine of Sensus Fidei justifies the Synod of the Laity.
The Catholic doctrine of the Reception of Doctrine also justifies the Synod of the Laity.
The advisory documents that would be issued by the Synod of the Laity might be identical to the fine articles already being published on the One Peter Five web site, in the Remnant Newspaper, and on the Rorate Caeli blog, and in other publications. But the difference would be in how the pope, bishops and the Church at large would view the documents of a Synod of a Laity. I think documents issued by 300-500 or more lay Catholics from all over the world would, I think, get more attention and respect than the articles written and edited by one or two people in a traditional Catholic blog or newspaper.
A meeting of Synod of the Laity would be an EVENT, and as such would have public relations value that an article in a newspaper or on a blog ordinarily does not have. The Synods of the Bishops are being used as public relations events, and a pope is able to frequently create events that are covered by the media–so we traditional lay Catholics need to create newsworthy events to counter those events.
I’d much rather see a revival of genuine Catholic Action (as distinct from Catholic Political Action; cf. Fr. Stephen DeLallo’s Catholic Action for Christ Our King). In fact, I’m somewhat surprised an apostolate of such Catholic Action has not yet emerged on the internet as far as I’m aware. I’m not interested in taking the rightful authority of the prelature in the governance of the Church. But I am very much for a more unified, coordinated internet presence of faithful Catholics under the guidance of good and holy priests, as described, for example, in Leo XIII’s letter Non Abs Re, or in the many letters of popes from St. Pius X to Pius XII which treat the subject.
A Synod of the Laity would not challenge the authority of the bishops or the pope. It would merely issue resolutions that would be advisory. Even the Synods of the Bishops have no power whatsoever, and merely issue documents that are merely advisory.
Whatever traditional Catholics do, they must do things that are seen as EVENTS by world, and by the media, and so draw attention.
The current Synod on the Family being carried out by the bishops and the pope is, in reality, an EVENT, that is, a public relations action. It was organized for the purpose of getting the wider Church ready for the changes that are coming.
So, when the bishops and the pope hold an international meeting and get lots of attention, we (traditional Catholic laity) need to hold an international meeting and get lots of attention. We will just give our view of things. We won’t vote to depose the pope.
Synod just means “meeting.” We have the right to have meetings.
The Code of Canon Law 212 §3 states that the Catholic faithful “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful…”
Catholic Action was the name of many groups of lay Catholics who were attempting to encourage a Catholic influence on SOCIETY. The highest priority now is encouraging a Catholic influence on the EPISCOPACY of the Church. We are in a period when the episcopacy has badly lost its way and are leading Catholics to great harm.
Bad idea, Sir, bad idea. During a time of revolution, the last thing we need is a new revolutionary structure.
Well, fair enough. What structure then do you suggest?
Please don’t say “blogging.”
I’m no prophet, but I don’t think blogging alone is going to accomplish much.
Traditional Catholic bloggers are often viewed as “fringe” or “lone wolf” Catholics. That’s how they are viewed by the vast majority of bishops, priests, and laity. For example, the professional apologists who work for the Catholic Answers organization regularly denounce traditional Catholics who criticize Vatican II, John Paul II, or the Novus Ordo mass; they say we are extremists.
We need to show them that there are MANY of us, that we are well-organized, and UNITED.
We just need to DO SOMETHING other than commenting from the sidelines on the travesty we see passing before our eyes! Don’t you agree?
We can tell which Bishops have made interventions that are material heresy.
Knowing that, get men in the Diocese of that heretic to regularly picket outside his residence and the Cathedral and distribute magisterial documents proving his material heresy; or, just do it your own self.
You can find all you need at the Denzinger-Bergolio Blog
Contact the press before picketing.
IANS picked the Chancery in Portland, Maine after the Bishop printed a column by Richard McBrien saying that Jesus was ignorant, in error, and sexually tempted and distributed magisterial documents proving otherwise.
The Chancellor of the Diocese called me at home and said, We all think that you are insane and he was politely thanked for sharing
After picketing for a week or so, the spokesman of the Bishop came outside and said, The Bishop agrees with McBrien
Nothing changed; it is still a dead diocese, but IANS was not going to stand for an assault upon the character of his Lord and Saviour.
Let me guess, the chancellor was a nun.
Nah, but he is epicene.
O,and IANS got sweet revenge when he became the Pastor at the Church in our home town. IANS went to Communion and afterwards, as they were leaving the Church his daughter laughed and said, “Dad, that was GREAT. He had to give you Communion and he hates your guts. I wonder what he was thinking..”
Yeah, Holy Communion dispensed by an enemy is the greatest revenge possible.
There is a ton of stuff to do.
Pray, Pray the Rosary, fast, find a faithful Mass (aka TLM), go often. read the bible.
Pray for and encourage every single man you know to act like one.
Some say the Barque turns slowly, but as we know from recent experience (the past 50 or so years and speeding up these past 2 and 1/2) the Barque turns as swiftly as the men at it’s helm.
Lets pray for and build up faithful men so we can have faithful families that produce faithful priests and maybe just maybe our grandchildren will refer to that ridiculous modernism “craze” that fueled the Great Apostasy.
Stand fast, unite with like-minded faithful in prayer and works of mercy (including distribution of materials countering heresy). Find a parish with the TLM and faithful shepherds and give everything you can, materially and physically, to support it. Help faithful families, their offspring will provide tomorrow’s vocations. If your bishop stinks, oppose him to his face, picket his residence. If you can’t find a TLM demand one, and if that doesn’t work, withhold financial support (put a note in the collection explaining your refusal) — nb if you have a good priest but bad bishop support your priest (gift him personally, give him stipends for masses –he doesn’t have to remit a cut to the diocese in most cases).
Preserve The Faith, innocent as doves but cautious as serpents. Don’t get political, that’s the game they can win, be faithful and yes be obedient wherever virtue requires (learn the hierarchy of virtues and how to apply them in diverse situations). And pray like you never prayed before. Pray as though everything depends on God, act as though everything depends on you.
In addition to Mortalium Animos, another not very well-known yet very important document is the Balamand Statement, which officially recognised the ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church as out-dated.
Thank you for that link.
The waking is happening in my neck of the woods. It is limited, but there are definitely a few of my die-hard N.O. friends who haven’t necessarily come to the dark side per se, but they have certainly slowed there collective “Die traddy die” rhetoric.
In fact a good friend of my wive’s was concerned we were taking it a bit far and insisted on talking with her about Francis and their Pilgrimage to see him in Philly. She wanted to tell her how wrong we were but in like a creepy Coleridgey/Dewy “into the room unannounced walked Pope Francis – like the Risen Lord” kinda way.
But that was before the Synod, turns out they didn’t get to talk until two days ago. My wife had geared up for the talk for a really long time, making sure she was keeping informed and such. But the conversation didn’t land on the topic of Francis once. Me thinks a revelation doth precedeth said phone convo.
We now have to parse every syllable any of the prelates at the Synod — in fact, any of our prelates anywhere, period ! — utter; as the author points out, this ugly two-year affair at the Vatican has awakened a healthy sense of distrust among the faithful. So what are we to make of Cdl. Gracias comment today quoted here:
“Questioned about the topic that has caused the most heated debate at the Synod, the proposal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion, Cardinal Gracias said that “to be honest, we don’t have a solution.” “
How about a punch in the face(s) for speaking heresy? And I’m a divorced and remarried Catholic convert….with a pissed off Protestant husband….so this is VERY concerning to me.
You know what, Kono? I think your story and your take on this might prove profitable to all of us. The heresiarchs in Rome want to pretend they speak for you, but my bet is that they do not. I don’t know about others at this site, but I’d like to hear your story.
Sure….I love giving my testimony. Right here?
Why not? Just change names “to protect the innocent,” as they say. In all seriousness, your testimony, I suspect, will inject some realism into the Disneyland-talk we hear from the likes of Cdls. Marx and Kasper. Your original post impressed me because, if I understand it correctly, you face a problem but you’re not willing to twist the truth because of it. I respect honesty.
Maybe I am ignorant or at the very least naive…..but how could anyone possibly think that “twisting the truth” could in any way help them? My problem is such that twisting the truth would bring condemnation on me…and I ain’t that ignorant. I love truth…always have. I even kissed and thanked my first husband when he finally admitted his cheating….I knew he did, but couldn’t prove it and it drove me nuts.
I’ll have to sleep on it and pray about my testimony as I’m not sure which aspects of it would pertain to this discussion. I just know that if we love God….then by default we must love Truth.
So according to Session 13, Canon 11 of the Council of Trent, those advocating the Kasper proposal are excommunicated? This was never revoked. Someone should bring this up on the floor of the Synod.
They wouldn’t care. The Church didn’t start until 1965 in their eyes.
Matthew, thank you for such a fine article. I am a convert to the Church from an Evangelical background. When I entered the church in 2006 I had absolutely no idea of what had happened during Vatican II versus the entire preceding history of the Church. Each day my eyes are being opened as I learn of traditionalists’ concerns. In a perverse sort of way I can credit Pope Francis and the Synod of Doom for that. I alternate between faith and dismay but am thankful that my family has access to the TLM only a few minutes from our home. We have only gone a few times but in light of all that’s happened, I believe it will become the norm for us. I will be taking pause in a few minutes to pray the Rosary. You’ll be in my intentions as will prayers for our Church in these dark times.
One of my favourite stories as a child was The Emperor’s New Clothes. I still remember very clearly hearing the scene recounted where the ‘tailors’ are seen measuring and cutting the ‘cloth’. Like all the best childrens’ stories, its significance was lost on me at the time, it was just a very funny story.
It seems that for the past 50 years or so The ‘Pollyanna’ Church as a whole has been in the same position as those courtiers who spied the tailors at work and came away impressed with the fine progress being made. At some point however the illusion has to break, and it is not insignificant that in the story it is the simple honesty of a child which eventually does the trick. The modernists have sent the emperor (The Faith, as it were) into the world to parade around naked, and slowly but surely people are starting to believe the evidence of their own eyes. There the parallel ends, because unlike the crowds lining the route in the story, nobody is laughing.
A wonderful summary!
Soooo.. Why exactly if these 1/4 of this damnable Synod devils teach something openly and repeatedly that makes them anathema, does NO ONE within the church in the supposed “traditional” camp CALL THEM OUT ON IT??
Ill tell you why.. Cause the supposed traditionalist camp doesnt believe in a damned thing either. Or, more correctly, hold the view that anything before that bastard council is just outdated nonsense. “Oh,but John Paul this and Paul VI that!” Notably, hardly any point of doctrine pre VII has even been brought up. As if nothing ever happened before.
Where is the Inquisition, oh Lord?
Where is the sword of thy wrath?
My question exactly. We see what is going on now. Many of us have for quite some time. It has percolated into something foul with these pretend-Synods. There has been an open declaration by many Cardinals for heresy. This is diabolical. The pope is an enabler of heresy, has put all the wrong people in the wrong places. Has attacked faithful clerics and laypeople. He is no pope.
So are we to just continue on like this? I keep hoping and waiting for someone in the church to step into the brink and state what we already know, these men are HERETICS and are promoting heresy, including the pope.
We are in schism already. We couldn’t be more divided. Progressivists and destroyers have a leader, but faithful Catholics have no leader. Making comments to a newspaper or putting out an oblique column is NOT a leader, a gatherer, a shepherd. If St. Paul were here, he would not write a column on related issues.
Lord, send us the man, and please don’t let him be the Anti-Christ.
Oh, oh! What does this mean? Anyone have any “inside dope” on these mergers?
The Pope announces the institution of a new dicastery
Vatican City, 23 October 2015 (VIS) – Yesterday afternoon, at the beginning of the afternoon Synod Congregation, the Holy Father made the following announcement.
“I have decided to establish a new dicastery with competency for the Laity, Family and Life, that will replace the Pontifical Council for the Laity and the Pontifical Council for the Family. The Pontifical Academy for Life will be joined to the new dicastery.
To this end, I have constituted a special commission that will prepare a text delineating canonically the competences of the new dicastery. The text will be presented for discussion by the Council of Cardinals at their next meeting in December”.
I’m *almost* tempted not to pray that the Pope assert traditional Catholic teaching because I think we need this synod to issue very explicit and clear heresy (the less ambiguous the better) so that the so called ‘conservative Catholics’ will not merely yawn and stir but rather awaken suddenly, sitting up straight in a smelling-salts fashion. I will of course pray because there will be casualties of immortal souls – and that is unacceptable.
“The reams of paper which have been spent on interpreting these texts merely help to underscore the fact that the clarity and logical consistency of the authentic Magisterium on this point has become so thoroughly muddled in the documents produced at and since Vatican II that anyone promoting the false ecumenism explicitly proscribed by Pope Pius XI can now do so with impunity.” Ouch, those words are true but painful!
For this is by no means the Modernist’s first rodeo, nor shall it be his last.
The scary part.
Psalm 124 (RSVCE)
Thanksgiving for Israel’s Deliverance
A Song of Ascents. Of David.
124 If it had not been the Lord who was on our side,
let Israel now say—
2 if it had not been the Lord who was on our side,
when men rose up against us,
3 then they would have swallowed us up alive,
when their anger was kindled against us;
4 then the flood would have swept us away,
the torrent would have gone over us;
5 then over us would have gone
the raging waters.
6 Blessed be the Lord,
who has not given us
as prey to their teeth!
7 We have escaped as a bird
from the snare of the fowlers;
the snare is broken,
and we have escaped!
8 Our help is in the name of the Lord,
who made heaven and earth.
Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] and [Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI] on true and false ecumenism: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/onepeterfive/the_communist_8220crucifix8221_a_golden_opportunity_for_pope_francis/#comment-2138552259
I consider myself a well educated, strong Catholic however in my life time I cannot remember another Pope that has confused so many Catholics with his remarks. Our Church is founded on Christ and its teachings not on the opinion of one or two clerics. These clerics seem to be overly influenced by secular notions. Perhaps its not the Church who needs to change but these clerics might do well with a refresher Catechism course.
I feel guilty that every time the Pope opens his mouth I become more confused about Church teaching. Thank heavens I have a wonderful traditionally minded priest who is my spiritual director. I feel the only way to stop feeling anxious is to just not read or listen to the Pope at all. This is the first Pope during my lifetime that seems to be more and more confusing.
Agreed. I suppose some orthodox clerics might be waiting for Pope Francis to do the “ultimate”, issue forth a proclamation that crosses the line into blatant heresy. He may or may not, but either way, he has inflicted a mortal wound on the church. Where are the faithful Catholic leaders, the Cardinals, who will denounce heresy boldly and without fear. The sheep are scattered.