Alfred W. Klieforth, US consul general at the Vatican, had a conversation with Pius XII soon after he became Pope in 1939. He reported the conversation to his superiors, including this statement by the Pope: ”He said that he opposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism. He regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel, but as a fundamentally wicked person. He did not believe Hitler capable of moderation.” This type of clear eyed analysis is sometimes missing today in the Church which since World War II has often seemed to adopt a de facto pacifism. A small symbolic event yesterday reminds us of why prayers for peace alone are often not sufficient in this Vale of Tears:
It was not clear what happened to the doves as they flew off.
Always remember that Christ admonishes us both to be as innocent as doves and as wily as serpents.
“The stones will cry out.”
I wonder if the Pope observed and took a lesson. A well arm dove – so to speak – would be able to fend off aggression from seagull and crow alike.
Keep your weapon clean and your ammo dry.
In addition to calling on all Catholics to say the Rosary prior to Lepanto, Pius V also put together a fleet to actually fight the Turks. That second step has been missing from Vatican thinking for a long time, and this pope is certainly not the one who will bring it back.
That flying circus was a fine, flapping metaphor for the efficacy of pacifism.
PS: I recent saw on-line a study that concluded that nations decide to go to war based on the perceived weaknesses of the foes.
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Plato(?)
Holy Rosary in hand as the scavengers form overhead.
Whats for dinner? Marriage definition? Unborn Life? Holy Church?
Pray as if your children’s life depends on it…..it does!
Eternal life!
If the release of the doves was an act symbolic of peace then the attack by the crow and sea gull was an act symbolic of the forces of evil.
That also happened when B16 released doves. Seems like heaven and earth are witnessing about spiritual warfare
T Shaw wrote, “I recent saw on-line a study that concluded that nations decide to go to war based on the perceived weaknesses of the foes.”
I should have thought that a perception of a potential enemy’s growing strength is at least as likely to precipitate war.
In 1914, many in France believed that, with their stagnant population and Germany’s growing one, they could not wait another generation, if they were to have any chance of recovering the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Similarly, Germany, believing war with Russia was inevitable, did not want to wait until she had completed the expansion of the railway system that would enable her to mobilise her massive reserves. Likewise, there were those in Britain who regarded the naval arms race with Germany as unsustainable and that, therefore, the sooner war came, the better.
Then again, Austria believed that, if she allowed herself to be humiliated by Serbia, she would lose control of her own minorities; Russia, especially after her humiliation by Japan, thought the same would happen, if she allowed her ally, Serbia, to be humiliated.
In other words, war here and now, because it is now or never.
Never underestimate the power of prayer!
By prayer Jesus found the means to complete the mission.
By prayer you have been redeemed!
Don’t underestimate prayer Donald McCleary.
By prayer you we’re created. No mistakes in the birth of a soul, none.
Without prayers hell on earth.
As Anzlyne pointed out, the same thing happened when Pope Benedict released two doves.
In other news sites I read that neither raven nor seagull are birds of prey, so they were not attacking to kill (and eat) the doves. Instead it might have been a turf issue seeing the two doves as interlopers, unwanted visitors etc
On a practical and humanitarian basis I would suggest that the Vatican for go such an event, especially since it is not part of any rite etc of the Church, but a ‘symbolic’ act only.
As to Donald’s point about the Church since WWII being de fact pacifist, I would nuance. I believe it is safe to say that the Church is nuclear pacifist. According to the received addresses, letters and other writings of various popes, but most especially Blessed John Paul II, it is safe to say that the Church has placed herself squarely against any use of nuclear arms-based precisely on the traditional Just War principles [proportionality, no collateral damage (civilian casualties) etc]
The Just War principles still remain part of the Church’s received tradition. What has taken place however is a accompanying sense, even a demand, that there are other options, most especially dialogue etc : that in fact if war takes place, no matter how ‘just’, it is always a failure of mankind. That is indeed a development of the Church’s stance. Further, ‘peace’ which is defined as more than ‘merely the absence of conflict’ is a good which needs to be constantly sought, worked for, etc
Another development within the Church is its growing sense of the Church’s universality-Catholicity. In times past (before Vatican I) bishops were frequently appointed by rulers, Kings etc. Thus there would be a compromised identity and allegiance etc. giving rise to bishops and clergy being cheerleaders for their national cause etc. Now, after Vatican I (this is not a typo-I mean Vatican I] bishops’ allegiances are fundamentally to the Church [I am not taking away issues of patriotism here] One example sticks out in my memory. When Argentina invaded the Faulkland Islands, Pope John Paul II called together the bishops of Great Britain and Argentina [or at least representatives of the two conferences] to a special meeting in Rome-so that they would not be seen railing against each other. This too is different, a development.
I believe all of us realize as time goes on that ‘war’ as we traditionally know of it, really has been transformed. For example, the First and Second World Wars mark wars which imitate the societies that were fighting-mass production in business was imitated in the mass onslaughts. invasions etc in both wars. We no longer live in that world. Globalized etc for better or ill, for example, China recognizes that she would have a price to pay herself (forgetting American response for a moment) if she were to attack America. Her economy etc would be effected drastically etc
However, warfare now has taken the form of ‘terrorism’ in all of its forms-thus the image of the two birds attacking the two doves does indeed apply. Just look at the terrorist attack in Boston. Americans in Boston were killed, maimed and terrorized by two young men who themselves were caught up in their own home country’s [Chetznya] against Russian hegemony, a Moslem country against a secularist and Christian country. However they brought the terror to Boston. We live in a very very different world. Old paradigms no longer work. Now how, besides the absolute necessity of prayer, can and should the Church respond?
“Now how, besides the absolute necessity of prayer, can and should the Church respond?”
Common sense and at least a cursory study of history might help. The de facto pacifism embraced by the Church since World War II defies both.
Donald,
I am a big believer in common sense, and you know, I think where I stand with the necessity of the study of history, but honestly besides criticizing what you call the de facto pacifism, you actually have not offered what the Church could/should do. I really am interested in hearing what the Church should do in the face of terrorism, ‘clash of civilizations etc
Botolph,
The Church and all of us should pay for VICTORY.
That would be “pray.”
T Shaw
OK I “buy that”. The Church should pray for victory-but of what or rather of whom? [I am not being sarcastic etc here] Peace? The end of terrorism? [all of which I fully agree with] or did you have something else in mind (a serious question)?
Botolph,
Victory of good over evil; light over darkness; life over death; freedom over slavery; . . .
But, I do not daily pray for victory. I pray that our brave soldiers may come come in one piece.
I recall dropping off my son at his company area on a cold, snowy night. Mother and I were driving his vehicle. As we departed the company area, one of his comrades in another vehicles came along side and (thinking it was our son) called out, “VICTORY!”
T Shaw,
I totally agree with your points, especially our service men and women. It was horrible how the vets were treated coming home from Vietnam-it was horrible!
In the 16th century the Church faced the dual threats of the Protestant Rebellion in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and England, and the Ottoman incursions up into Austria-Hungry. The Church’s response was to excommunicate the heretics, and fight against the Muslim Turks.
Today the Church faces the dual threats of liberal progressivism (supported by not a few self-described Catholics) and Islamic extremism. What should the Church’s response be other than what it has already established as a precedence for itself?
But today we have all too often lavender dressed effeminate clerics without an ounce of manhood in them. Thus will God prune His Tree, whether by liberal progressive dictatorship called “Democracy” or by Islamic extremism, or by both, but prune His Tree He will till the dead branches of lavender are cut away and fruit can be borne for the Kingdom of God. What God let Assyria do to Israel and Babylon do to Judah serves as a stark reminder of the painfulness that this pruning process will be.
🙁
Paul Primavera,
In the 1500s-1600’s the Church was faced, as you said with the double crisis of the Protestant Reformation and the onslaught of the Moslem Turks further into Europe. To the first group the response was excommunication [actually the first real response was the Council of Trent and the clear teaching/then excommunication] The Church did raise up Christian forces to defeat the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto, but not without the power of prayer (the rosary).
I believe we need to be clearer and yes tougher with those going against major Church teachings such as abortion, marriage etc. We do not have armies nor have the power to raise armies against Islamicist terrorism etc but we still have prayer (the rosary), clear understanding about what Islam is and wants, and constant speaking out against what is happening to Christians in all parts of the world. The rosary brought down the Soviet Empire, we still have that weapon.
We are basically in agreement
Amen Paul.
I believe you have it right.
This time is an era of pruning.
The shears just started to cut.
Were in for a “crew cut.”
Yes there seems to be a hope for peace that may be unrealistic. I can understand the cry of the popes’ hearts “no more war, war never again” especially with their WWII experience. I can also understand the struggle with the idea of pre-emptive war. I think those popes had, as did so many of us, hopes that the UN could be a peacekeeper. As we see now the UN can be dominated by aggressive and even hostile nations who many band together on erstwhile religious lines that are actually political lines. I think the defacto pacifism has been based on hope related to the UN but in the meanwhile that hope is wearing thin.
Anzlyne,
I totally agree with your point
As long as the conflict between good and evil continues on the spiritual level it will continue in the world.
We hope to win the spiritual war not just by prayer but also by our personal witness, and by active conversion of the world. That is for all of us the laity and clerical.
During the French Revolution the actual terror of spiritual warfare was made plain. That battle ultimately came to an end right after the spiritual victory of the nuns at Compiègne.
As far as the involvement of the “institutional” Church goes, shouldn’t it be in the leadership in the clear dialogue and direction given to believers and unbelievers alike.
“The rosary brought down the Soviet Empire…”
Untold prayer yes. But also untold sacrifice of military personnel from many nations in the Cold War and when that war became hot.
Yes prayer and mortification. But action is also needed.
“Yes prayer and mortification. But action is also needed” -Philip
We have always depended upon military defense against evil. That lying devil seeks to kill and destroy, and, stubborn as we are, we seek to live!
I surely believe in military action.
I don’t know for sure what action by the Church… outside of the leadership and pontificating that could and should include moral support for soldiers against tyranny.
“The rosary brought down the Soviet Empire…”
Those prayers aided the United States Nuclear Submarine Force in deterring Soviet aggression. I was a proud member thereof – a submarine reactor operator.
As Philip pointed out, action is needed. Our motto was, “Death from below.” The Soviets knew it, and their fear of that fact was a great motivator for peace given that they couldn’t find our subs but we could always find theirs.
The enemy fears death. Remember that, because when he dies he knows where he is going.
Unfortunately, political reality is often a lot murkier than a fight between good and evil, truth and error.
During the Thirty Years’ War, Cardinal Richelieu and Père Joseph du Tremblay, passionate in their devotion to the Church, believed that only the French monarchy could successfully uphold the Catholic cause in Europe and saw the « Pré carré » as the only secure bastion of the Faith.
Accordingly, whilst crushing the political power of the Huguenots at home, they supported the Protestants against the Habsburg power. They subsidised the Dutch to fight the Spanish and engineered the Swedish intervention, formalised in the Treaty of Bärwalde.
Two hundred years later, we find Catholic powers, France and the Dual Monarchy defending Ottoman rule over the Christian populations of the Balkans, as a barrier to Russian influence in the region. Napoléon III saw this alliance as essential to France’s ability to act as the protecting power of Catholics in Syria and the Levant.
Good men, pious men, trying to deal with a concrete situation according to their best lights.
“We do not have armies nor have the power to raise armies against Islamicist terrorism etc”
How about, after consultation with the political leaders of the countries involved, the pope calls on all Catholic men with military training to offer their services to defend Christians who are being killed by Muslim terrorists and war bands in various countries throughout the world?
This wouldn’t work in the Middle East, where the governments are usually part of the problem, but should work in some of the African countries where you have large Christian populations and governments that try to protect those Christian populations. Why not give them help?
“Yes there seems to be a hope for peace that may be unrealistic. I can understand the cry of the popes’ hearts “no more war, war never again” especially with their WWII experience.”
There will never be peace on Earth until the Second Coming. To claim that we, as human beings, can achieve it is delusional.
“Good men, pious men, trying to deal with a concrete situation according to their best lights.”
No, men interested in increasing their country’s, and thereby their own, power at the expense of the Church. The French have an especially bad record on this going back to Philip Augustus.
this is a metaphor of the damage this so-called pope does to the Christ’s herd: thanks to him we are all exposed to the devil’s claws, or the wolves’ clutches… to become their victims.”Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.”
A false shepherd , who is not a true shepherd, and whose sheep are not his own, and doesn’t love them and is willing to harm them, does all he can to harm them, and let the wolves catch and scatter them….. “Beware of false shepherds”!
bbruno
Pope Francis is not a ‘so called pope” He is the validly elected successor of Saint Peter.
botolph,
” validly elected “? A heretic, and even worse elected by heretics, a pope validly elected??? Not at all, according to “Cum ex apostolatus Officio “, and according to reason, as confirmed by Leo XIII in his “Satis Cognitum”:” “Cum absurdum sit opinari, qui extra Ecclesiam est, eum in Ecclesia praeesse”., And those who are heretics are outside the Church, and can’t preside over it!
bbruno,
So the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church huh? And that makes Christ’s promise what a lie? And if it is a lie, He is not the Way the Truth and the Life? And if He is not the Way the Truth and the Life, God has not fulfilled any of His promises? And if God has not fulfilled any of His promises He is both unloving and unfaithful? Really?
Have you really thought this through and brought it to prayer?
Bbruno
Those who attempt to use past definitions as a criterion by which to judge the living voice of the Magisterium would do well to ponder the words of Bl John Henry Newman: ““It is in vain to say that the man who judges from the Apostles’ writings, does submit to those writings in the first instance, and therefore has faith in them; else why should he refer to them at all? There is, I repeat, an essential difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to his written words; in the former case there is no appeal from the speaker, in the latter the final decision remains with the reader…. I can fancy a man magisterially expounding St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians or to the Ephesians, who would be better content with the writer’s absence than his sudden reappearance among us; lest the Apostle should take his own meaning out of his commentator’s hands and explain it for himself. In a word, though he says he has faith in St. Paul’s writings, he confessedly has no faith in St. Paul.”
This obviously applies to those who appeal to past popes or councils (who can no longer speak for themselves) against the teaching of the living successors of the apostles.
Botolph and Michael Paterson
the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church – See more at: https://the-american-catholic.com/2014/01/27/popewatch-doves-and-serpents/#sthash.SdoJyyA6.dpuf
Exactly! “the gates of hell” do prevail against the Church when they succeed in getting us to believe that the shepherds ‘elected ‘ by them are true shepherds of the church, when they get us to accept their church – the “strange church” as it was seen by the Ven. Emmerich- as the true Church of Jesus Christ. Heretics and non-believers can’t be part of the Church (read above Leo XIII), lest of all, shepherds (“good shepherds” ) of the Church. The Church, is an “ens morale” ( ‘legal person’ in english?), not a natural person (persona physica), and an ens morale can remain for a while without anyone to preside – phisically – over it, (as it happened to the Church during the persecution of the roman emperor Decius, a vacancy of 4 years … and remenber that in the face of God one thousand years are like one day- and thus 60 years are like zero comma and comma …of one day!) It is Jesus Christ the Head of His Church, and it was He who said: “behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” “I “!
if you hold that these are true popes (these conciliar popes) , then believe in the “freedom of conscience “, “freedom of religion”, “the same God for us, christians and muslims and jews…” , “the salvation for all men for the simple fact of the shared humanity” etc. etc…These are all doctrinal errors, alredy condemned by the previous popes…No true pope can contradict another pope. If this happened, the church would be destroyed, and a pope can’t destroy the Church. If he does so, he’ s not a pope: he’s a fake pope! Beware and pray that Christ comes soon and unmask these false prophets, false shepherds , and destroys these gates of hell: because, I’m sure, at the end, they NON PRAEVALEBUNT!!!!
Henry Newman is an example of false shepherd, beatified by a false pope ( he permanently opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, and his life was also of doubtful morality…) , in order to confirm himself – and the concilar popes – in the false doctrine teached by them, in order to deceive the faithful, and ruin all men!!”
If you do well with the new church, good: I stay with the OLD one: that which makes me believe:
-“In unum Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem.. Factorem cæli et terræ…
-Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Filium Dei unigénitum et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sǽcula: Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri…qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem, descéndit de cælis, et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex Maria Víirgine et homo factus est, crucifíxus passus et sepúltus est, et qui resurréxit tértia die … et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris, et íterum ventúrus est cum glória, iudicáre vivos et mórtuos, cuius regni non erit finis.
-Et in Spíritum Sanctum, …qui ex Patre Filióque procédit,
- Et unam sanctam cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
– Et in unum Baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum. - Et in resurrectiónem mortuórum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.”
This is not the God of the jews the muslims or (without their knowledge ) of every men: this is the CATHOLIC God – the only true God, in Jesus Christ revealed! no matter what Bergoglio, sorry, pope Francis, say! Freedom of religion, isn’t it true?
bruno,
You apparently did not understand what I wrote. If indeed since 1958 the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church-completely against Christ’s own promise to Peter concerning the Church built upon Peter, then the whole thing-including what you are ‘fighting for’ does not exist. This is that clear. Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 1 5 when he wrote, If Christ has not been raised from the dead we are the most pitiful of men” This is one of those very clear moments, decisions need to be made indeed, but remember, if hell has prevailed against the Church since 1958 then there is no Church at all.
Jesus Christ is Head of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is the visible head of the Catholic Church on earth and the Vicar of Christ. Without Christ, we are all going to hell, bbruno, Mary and the pope. Hope to not see you there.
Oh, when souls are in hell there is no remembrance of others. The souls in heaven do not know the souls in hell.
Botolph ( and Mary)
It is clear that you too – Botolph – have some difficulty in understanding me.I strongly believe that the gates of the hell won’t prevail, despite all these infernal forces mobilised against Christ and His church, and now from inside the structures of the Church.How could we accept a church that gives a teaching opposed to its previous teaching, which contradicts its own magisterium? In the name of a living tradition? What’s a living tradition: that which change with the living? According to their tastes? Once an anathema against those who asserted Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Religion, and now woe to the opponents! Come on!
The Church has not ceased to exist since 1958: it has entered the night of the proof, it has undergone, as it were, the darkness of an eclipse… If you don’t agree with me, tell me how I could accept the new beliefs such as those I exemplified in my previous comment… I am misunderstanding the words and statements of these – I.M.O – popes (the conciliar popes?), am I? No one here is stupid! 60 and more years of teaching misunderstood! And no misunderstanding about the teaching of the previous centuries and centuries…
Dear Mary, I hope that God has pity on me, but certainly to believe in these new church is not the right way to have His pity on me!
At peace!
bbruno,
I see you are a very sincere believer-seeker. It is those who have twisted texts and meanings who have beguiled you. There is no contradiction of teaching on faith and morals in the Church. Change in how to handle certain issues, such as ‘freedom of religion’ yes, but no change in teaching etc. Those who have caught you in their snares are confusing you as if policies, principles and even canons are the same as teachings on faith and morals.
The term you have been given “the night of the proof” is a ‘new teaching’ and does not exist in Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. Remember, ‘private revelations’ of ‘seers’ or even saints are not ‘the teaching of the Church’. Yes, indeed, the Church is always n the midst of toils and struggles and tribulations (from Saint Augustine). We are like disciples in the ‘bark of Peter’ out on the Sea of Galilee. A storm comes and we are ready to abandon ship. We scream “Lord save us”, yet Christ is in our midst. After He calms the storm with a simple command, He looks back at us and decries our ‘lack of faith’. There is only one bark-that of Peter. If we step outside of it, we drown.
Bbruno
You say that Rome departed from the true faith in 1968. The Eastern Orthodox will say she did so in 1054. By what test are we to know that you are right and they wrong?
The Armenians and the Copts will claim that both East and West abandoned the true faith in 451. What argument would you use to contradict them? It cannot be a question of numbers, surely, which would destroy your own case.
And then we have the Assyrian Orthodox Church, which says that they alone are faithful to the Apostolic teaching, which all the rest of the Christian world abandoned in 431, whilst they have maintained their faithful witness for going on 1,583 years. How would you seek to persuade them that they are in error?
There is only one answer that holds up: the faithful, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome. And in fact there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other. It is a test remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.
bbruno you are apparently worried about is that the current “Rome” is not in communion with the “Rome” pre Vatican II. I don’t know enough; about your concerns to address them in detail I just know I Decided to Accept in Faith some of the things that are hard for me to understand. I have had the experience of simply getting very upset only to find out that I had a mistaken understanding … like Gilda Radner’s church lady I have had to say “never mind!” 🙂
Seriously, bbruno, think of Peter’s response in the sixth chapter of John when the Lord’s teaching was hard to accept, when others actually walked away from Jesus. Peter said “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” That is Peter’s confession of faith!
This is a big decision here, not to follow the Church since Vatican II. 1. Your decision could easily be based on deep misunderstanding
or 2. You now are our of the boat. You are relying only on your own conscience and inner sense of direction, in other words you are a protestant.
You know it was at John 6:66 that some disciples turned and walked away from the Lord, not recognizing the Truth.
Botolph,
tell me ,
-do you believe that our God, the God by Jesus Christ and IN Jesus Christ revealed, is the same God Jews and Muslims believe in?
-do you believe that the jews have the salvation without the faith in Jesus Christ? That the Old Covenant is still in force, and not abrogated?
-Do you believe that all men are saved for the mere fact that they are men, for their having their human nature in common with Jesus Christ? -Do you believe the New Mass is the same Mass as that of S. Pius V ( by the lutherans and anglicans this one detested, and that one exalted?)
-Do you believe that a pope, even as a simple priest, can’t tell anything about, for instance, the gays?
– Do you believe that a pope can change the nature of christian marriage and rules connected (as Bergoglio has just announced)?
….
I do not.
And I would be beguiled??? Or you, perhaps? In my readings, I’ve had S. Thomas Aquinas’ among my preferred, and the first thing I’ve learnt from them is ‘Principium contradictionis’, i.e. “Nothing can be both A and not-A.”
Michael Paterson
I said that NEW Church appeared officially since 1958, with John 23, since the very moment of his election.
You speak about various accusation of departures from the true faith, 1054, 451, 431… Why do you not record the year 33, when Judas Iscarioth betrayed Jesus Christ because of his non-conformity with the faith of the jews about the Messiah? Aside from that, I will answer to your question: “By what test are we to know that you are right and they wrong?” i in the same way as you do, “by the test of the church of Rome”. Because only to Peter Jesus Christ promised his assistance. The various accusation made against the Catholic Church of departing from the true faith turned against those who made them, and they went off the Church of Peter, off the Rock established by Jesus Christ for His Church.
NOW – and here I am in desagreement with you – the builders of the NEW Church pretend to be the shepherds of the Church of Christ, and even from “the See of the Blessed Peter” (Leo XIII), that they occupy abusively.
“For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.”
And this is enough.
bbruno:
tell me ,
-do you believe that our God, the God by Jesus Christ and IN Jesus Christ revealed, is the same God Jews and Muslims believe in?
.
If this were true these persons would know Jesus Christ.
.
-do you believe that the jews have the salvation without the faith in Jesus Christ?
.
The Jews have God WHO is leading them into the Faith of Jesus Christ and salvation.
.
That the Old Covenant is still in force, and not abrogated?
.
The Old Covenant is not abrogated which means destroyed. The Old Covenant is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead.
.
-Do you believe that all men are saved for the mere fact that they are men, for their having their human nature in common with Jesus Christ?
.
There is the matter of free will. Jesus saves all men. Men must accept salvation.
.
-Do you believe the New Mass is the same Mass as that of S. Pius V ( by the lutherans and anglicans this one detested, and that one exalted?)
.
The Mass of St. Pius V came before Henry VIII’s protestant revolt and is loved by the Lutherans and Anglicans. The New Mass and the Mass of St. Pius V are the same Mass. The Mass brings to earth the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
.
-Do you believe that a pope, even as a simple priest, can’t tell anything about, for instance, the gays?
.
The gays are persons who have same sex orientation. The gay agenda, their homosexual act and their militant intent to become an icon, are not connected with the same sex orientation.
.
– Do you believe that a Pope can change the nature of Christian marriage and rules connected (as Bergoglio has just announced)?
.
Pope Francis promised to study the situation of those outside of the church because of their marriage. Pope Francis promised a committee and a study.
Mary de Voe
–The Jews have God WHO is leading them into the Faith of Jesus Christ and salvation.
… In fact, look how the jews have arrived at the faith in Jesus Christ! (cfr Talmud!). They are ‘obstinate’ since the times of Saint Paul!
–The Old Covenant is not abrogated which means destroyed. The Old Covenant is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead. . –
… ‘To abrogate’ means: -to repeal or do away with (Oxford Dict.)- to end a law or agreement (Cambridge Dict. )-to end or cancel in a formal and official way (Merriam-Webster)
Ratzinger, ‘pope’ Bened.XVI, speaks about the parallelism between the Synagogue and the Church ( at the Synagogue in Rome, January, 1st 2010 ). And he reflects exatly the whole thought of the conciliar church…before and after him…
–There is the matter of free will. Jesus saves all men. Men must accept salvation.
…All right. But not salvation ‘apart from acceptation’. Saint Peter is categorical:”Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ”. But Bergoglio ‘pope’ Francis says: fellow your conscience and you are saved ( see his recent dialogue with Scalfari, the italian bearded Guru, as reported in the very influential newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ , founded by him.
–The Mass of St. Pius V came before Henry VIII’s protestant revolt and is loved by the Lutherans and Anglicans. The New Mass and the Mass of St. Pius V are the same Mass.
… But AFTER Henry VIII, those who were discovered saying the Pius V’s Mass, would be “hanged drawn and quartered…” ( have I to cite Edward Campion Robert Southwell Henry Walpole?), because of this very Mass, sentenced by Luther Martin as the “utmost abomination” just for its being a ‘sacrifice’, the ‘same sacrifice of the Cross’, and not for its bringing us the real presence of Christ, which he maintained through the way of the consubtantiation… and by the Anglicans an abominable act of idolatry…A Mass very loved indeed! Only if you see it only as a ‘presence’, as you are just doing, assuming that all catholics still understand this presence as real or symbolic….But how this presence without the sacrifice??? How a ‘table’ and ‘banquet without an ‘altar’???..
—The gays are persons who have same sex orientation. The gay agenda, their homosexual act and their militant intent to become an icon, are not connected with the same sex orientation.
…The gays are persons who are PRIDE of their orientation- Gay Pride Parade – , and Bergoglio ‘pope’ Francis tells us the he can’t judge! Is it for this reason he has become ‘their’ man??? (cfr. ADVOCATE )
.
—Pope Francis promised to study the situation of those outside of the church because of their marriage. Pope Francis promised a committee and a study.
… To study what? How to make the christian marriage a bit less indissoluble??? And divorce a mere passage? And a man plus man- or a woman plus woman- a simple variation of marriage? And why not polygamy and… polyandry as good as these other variations???
anzyline
.”Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” That is Peter’s confession of faith!
-Certrainly: Peter’s confession, not the false Peter’s, who disavows Jesus Christ’ s words of eternal life! – See examples above.
The faith is not “assensus sine ratione” or “contra rationem” .
Faith involves the consent of reason: it’ not a blind consent! (cfr S. Thomas Aquinas, , S.T. P.I-II, Q.15)
God became man if that isn’t sacrifice enough for you you are hopelessly lost. If symbols are all you see, you must look deeper. Why do you speak for Pope Francis? He and the Magisterium will speak with infallibility.
bbruno.
Q; Did Jesus condemn the man who was expelling demons in His Fathers name?
One of the twelve wanted to have the man cease, yet Jesus did not want it so.
Could the time spent in arguments aganist The Holy See be more useful?
The man expelling demons “didn’t belong” in the eyes of the Apostle!
Blessed, soon to be St. John Paul the Great……a wolf?
World Youth Days – Eastern communist block – Divine Mercy Sunday – just a few of the “workings of the wolf.”
bbruno. Please help me to understand Jesus’ prayer; St. John’s Gospel chpt. 17
Good reflection material.
Philip,
rightly Our Lord reproached them, because that one was right: he had driven out demons in HIS Name ( NOT “in His Father’s name, as you quoted – and I guess the reason of this change…a freudian slip?)… “In the NAME of Jesus Christ”, thanks to the faith in the unique saving force of the Name of Jesus Christ, the only ” name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.” And it is for that, that Jesus adds: “Whoever is not against us is for us.”Mc 9.
But be careful: the same Jesus says to us: Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters”-Mt 12,30.
“With me” means: “only with me” : whoever tries to put all toghether, is simply against Him. And whoever thinks of gathering from everywhere, he simply scatters!
But now for the new church, “every name” is good for ‘salvation’, even “the name” of our own conscience! – ( Bergoglio ‘pope’ Francis to Scalfari, following Ratzinger ‘pope’ Benedict XVI, who teached that the coscience is the supreme Tribunal! ).
Or will it not be that we believe in the ‘salvific’ force of any names, since we really do not believe in any devils ( in fact, in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, the New church hasn’t removed any kind of exorcisms???)
–As for the understanding of John 17, I think it is good to focus on these words of Him: “this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” That is, the faith in the only true God, the Father, who has sent to us his only begotten Son, to rescue and save us”. No other god, and no conscience free from its duty to recognise this Supreme and Ultimate Thruth!
-As you see, we are in the same line of the previous discussion.