The Tenth Crusade
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Excellent Post at CMR
HERE
(If you've never read Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, it is spectacular Lenten reading. I mean spectacular.)
To CMR's point, many do not know where to find their guidance through the reckless statements coming out of Rome.
Sure, some of it is translation. I'll go so far as to say most of it is translation, misunderstanding.
The Pope's selection of Cardinal Kasper - that isn't a translation problem.
The Pope's own words stating Cardinal Kasper's trainwreck theology is excellent and something the bishops need to open their mind to - that isn't a translation problem.
The Pope indicating he doesn't know where to find all the examinations already done on civil unions and the Catholic materials leading to conclusions and instructing the faithful based upon those examinations - that isn't a translation problem.
This is a different kind of problem. The Pope thinks a Cardinal misleading Catholics into formal revolt and schism in Germany is the person to lead his see from being open to his excuses to subvert 2000 years of doctrine.
I mean, you know...come on.
I am not concerned about the SSPXers. They've already jumped the Ark.
In the madness, the sedevacanists are rising to take advantage of the confusion of a call of a shepherd's voice we do not recognize.
Here is a Catholic, I deeply admire and respect who is driving the bus off of the cliff.
He found a link from a whackadoodles who claim The Blessed Mother contradicted Christ at LaSalette.
It is an oldie but a goodie.
“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”
Our Lady never said this. The visionary did not report that Our Lady said it. Somebody made that up years afterward and added it to the substance of the message. It has been spreading around like blasphemy of Joseph d'Hippolitto in Catholic comboxes.
It is not part of the apparition.
Steve goes on to build his case:
Apostasy. Antichrist. A liar, a divine impostor reigning from the “temple of God”, which we can only take to mean the Church that Christ established: the Catholic Church.
Listen - folks. The Pope is a faithful man. He belongs to Our Lady. I am most confident in my convictions about this.
It is getting crazy out there. When confusion is reigning, when crazy comes, lots of people latch onto the honest disclosures of the problems and look for the way through the storm.
IMO, pretending the problem doesn't exist contributes to people being sucked down the drain.
I think it is critically important to stop people from following the toot-toots of the ancient tooter - to step forward and say keep your eyes on the the teachings of the Church as they are bound. Bind your conduct to it. Get to confession and the Sacraments when your conduct strays from it. Increase your reception of the Eucharist. Show and teach others the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
It took me nearly an hour to read Steve Skojec's essay, yet you seem fixated on that one part for some reason. As if the rest is to be entirely discounted? Plus, he did admit that the text in question has been disputed (why don't you mention that?), so I don't see that he was saying with 100% certainty that it is an authentic part of the La Salette message. So let's say he didn't include that part in his essay, would you still claim he's "driving the bus off the cliff"? Many people, myself included, are extremely grateful for his courage in writing what he did.
Charmaine, I am not sure where I've lost you (and perhaps others) so I'm struggling with how to respond.
Steve builds up to a quote from what he purports to be from the Blessed Mother which he knows is not what the seer reported the Blessed Mother said and is not reported anywhere but nutjob websites. He then discredits those who discredit the absurd quote and uses it towards his summit of his thoughts that the Pope is the antichrist.
Nothing 'bout 'dat gets gratitude going for this gal.
kindly note the following profound errors from Steve:
"Whether or not the 1879 vision of Our Lady of LaSalette is real, or a product of the visionary’s imagination (she was said to have been reading some pretty apocalyptic stuff after the original and fully approved visions) is something we may never know. But scripture is telling us that the statement, ”Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist” has some real merit. In fact, this seems to be exactly what is being predicted in 2 Thessalonians.'
a) Though he knows he's harvested that quote from something other than what the two children said Our Lady said, he pins it on them.
This quote is not from the children who actually reported the message.
b) He seems to be making the case that Our Lord confirmed this false quote in Thessalonians.
"But scripture is telling us that the statement, ”Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist” has some real merit. In fact, this seems to be exactly what is being predicted in 2 Thessalonians."
Every once in a while, somebody tries to crack a code that never was, is not and never will be Catholic theology.
Does the smoke of satan enter the Church. It sure does.
It's been around for years. Bishops, priests and the poor slobs under their guidance drop dead from it. Steve is choking on it.
Charmaine, don't get on the spaceship.
Rome is the Deposit of Faith. Christ promised It's protection. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Period.
"Kneel Down! Kneel Down! Do you not see on high the golden Chalice and the bright rays darting from the Host? It is the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. The Angels are adoring It. Come let us join our adoration to theirs.” ~~Saint Paschal Baylon
Even Church approved apparitions are not part of divine revelation. They are to be prayerfully considered by the Faithful, but they are not authoritative. They can even be ignored and by doing so, revelation is not denied. They should not be used as a road-map for a particular time and place. They cannot authoritatively say that this particular Pope is diabolical or an agent of the diabolical. An approved apparition can give insight into the general danger that evil and apostasy always represent.
On the other hand a Pope can be personally unfaithful. He could be (in his person) a rapist even a murderer. The Holy Spirit protects the Church against a Pope teaching as dogma something against the Magisterium. The Holy Spirit also protects the Church against the gates of hell prevailing. However, an individual Pope can do incredible, visible damage to the Church short of this. I believe Francis is incredibly weak and he will do great damage.
Until such time as we see the blueprint and execution, I am reserving judgment on the damage he could potentially do to the Church.
My guess is, he is going to pull a 'tada' on Church teaching after a period of attracting. I doubt he will ever anchor the ship to anything kooky but time will tell. And, if he does, I'll draw sound conclusions then. I think we are still premature in the game.
Until that time, I think it best to just stick close to what the Church binds and test everything against it. If it isn't bound, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. No matter where it comes from.
“Rejoice, O Jerusalem; and come together all you that love her.”
pps
This is exactly why I am holding reservation:
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/03/the-popes-uber-secret-plan-to-save.html
This has absolutely occurred to me. He could outsmart us all. It would be a way to pull the German's right back into the bosom of the Church.
But, even if it is really bad news, the trajectory is the same. SWTRCCaC. Sticking With The Roman Catholic Church and Sacraments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro
LOL.
Hysteria is for the hysterical.
I had to google the term "sedevacantists" to find out that it meant ppl view JXXIII as a heretic. I grew up in a family that disliked much of Vatican II, but to say the pope's a heretic seems a bit overboard.
TTC,
Excellent overall post, especially about: "(If you've never read Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, it is spectacular Lenten reading. I mean spectacular.)"
Disagree with you about SSPX
(minus Bishop Richard Williamson).
Thanks Michael,
Maybe I wasn't clear about my context with the sspx'ers?
I meant I can't do anything for them on this blog. They've jumped ship. I am trying to influence others not to jump off to them.
the sedevacanists (sorry about the tpo!) do not assent to the authority of binding. That's a fatal flaw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGTUKhqz9_A
Just keep in mind that no man, NO man, has the power or authority to bind Christ against Himself. you can't use Matthew 16:19 to negate or obliterate Mark 10:10-12, Matt 19:9, and Luke 16:18…not to mention 2000 years of Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, and Papal and Counciliar statements. Peter's job is to safeguard the deposit, not foment his own personal Lambeth conference. If October turns out according to the Bishop of Rome's favorite theologian, C. Kasper's plan, with the pope's full blessing, then Houston, we have a BIG problem.
These are excellent posts with much meat...I certainly hope you won't call either of these outstanding shepherds 'whack-a-doodles'...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/italian-cardinal-says-allowing-communion-for-civilly-remarried-is-impossibl?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines
http://fatherdylanjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/divorce-and-remarriage-oikonomia-and.html
THANK GOD for the push-back.
Susan,
If you've been reading here, I have gone to great lengths to acknowledge the papalooza and have articulated some of what is written in both of these posts - including the citation from Christ about adultery.
We don't have any idea what the Pope has in mind - so there is no judgment to make about whether or not it falls within his authority to bind. As I've mentioned, if he makes changes to the annulment process to ramp up a few more excuses, and people are granted annulments - they are no longer married once they receive their dispensation. As near as I can tell, the Pope has authority to bind under these circumstances.
We don't have to agree or like it but it's a check mate.
There are other circumstances where the Pope can checkmate with his authority.
Even under the worst of the worst come November - no matter what it looks like, it is the Body of Christ, where His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity is - and all the histrionics in the world is not going to make It the antichrist. It is impossible. The devil and Christ do not merge to become one. The Church is His Body - literally His Body.
So concepts to run down the street away from Christ screaming are not going to gel with me.
ps - I DO thank God for the push back!
Hi there. Since you're talking about me, I thought I'd pop in.
You're really mischaracterizing my position. From the several sources I checked, the 1879 LaSalette message has no clear condemnation from the Church. Fisheaters said that it has an imprimatur from at least one bishop. Here's the exact text from their site:
"After this, the story gets confused and controversial, just as did the secrets told at Fatima (see below). Some years later, after having read a lot of "end of the world" literature, Melanie wrote a much longer version in which she said that part of what Our Lady told her was that Rome was to become the seat of the antichrist. This is how the secret was published in 1879, with an Imprimatur from the Bishop of Lecce, Italy"
I thought that I had presented that in a pretty balanced way. It's not like I was trying to hide something.
Now, my reading of 2 Thessalonians seemed to confirm that statement. And there are other indications from other spiritual writers that Rome will suffer significant apostasy. The tendency is certainly already there.
However, it has since been brought to my attention that patristic thinking on the Antichrist reigning from the Temple of God refers to a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. If that's the case, so be it. Again, I'm trying to get at the larger picture.
I put an update on my site just a few minutes ago that reads:
UPDATE: 3/31/14
"In the comments, CJ says: "The broad patristic consensus on the Antichrist is that the “Temple” refers not to the church but to the synagogue."
And indeed, as I've done some additional reading in Fr. Vincent Miceli's book, The Antichrist, that does seem to be the favored interpretation. He cites Ireneaus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others in support of this. As I said at the outset of this post, "I have no special gift for divining the course of the future; I receive no private revelations." I should add that I'm no scripture scholar, either. I'm just a guy trying to piece this together. There does seem to be evidence that apostasy in Rome to some degree is certainly within the realm of possibility. I know that Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions of a syncretistic Church that does great damage to the faith has Rome at the center. I'm sure there's probably a great deal more out there. Researching this isn't my full-time job, though, so I have to find what I can in the time I can scrape up.
If I didn't make it clear enough before, I'll say it with more force here: THIS IS ALL MY OWN INTERPRETATION AND THINKING AND NOTHING MORE. It could all very well be wrong. Take it with a big grain of salt. Do your own homework. I'm not an authority of any kind on the matters discussed herein. "
So again, I'm not going over any cliffs, I'm just trying to make sense of what I'm picking up on.
Thank you, Susan.
Hi Steve,
Thank you for stopping in and clarifying your post.
I don't believe Fisheaters is a reliable source of information on approved apparitions. When looking, always check the Holy See to see what has been approved . I have never found that quote on the site of the Holy See but of you find it, please post.
The post led me to believe you felt the unapproved quote and Scripture put the puzzle together that the Body of Christ Itself becomes the antiChrist.
I am unclear if you are saying this conclusion is a misunderstanding as you say you have learned new info.
You were not saying that?
It is a bad situation and I am sorry it has turned into a scandal .
I don't believe Fisheaters is a reliable source of information on approved apparitions.
Whether you believe it or not does not make it more or less true. If you have some reason to believe that, feel free to share it. I was trying to find a non-crazy website that explained the apparition, and I know of no section of the Vatican website that validates or invalidates apparitions. The presentation at Fisheaters was, at least, balanced.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the controversy in much the same way:
"As said above, the Blessed Virgin confided to each of the two children a special secret. These two secrets, which neither Mélanie or Maximin ever made known to each other, were sent by them in 1851 to Pius IX on the advice of Mgr. de Bruillard. It is unknown what impressions these mysterious revelations made on the pope, for on this point there were two versions diametrically opposed to each other. Maximin's secret is not known, for it was never published. Mélanie's was inserted in its entirety in brochure which she herself had printed in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the approval of the bishop of that town. A lively controversy followed as to whether the secret published in 1879 was identical with that communicated to Pius IX in 1851, or in its second form it was not merely a work of the imagination. The latter was the opinion of wise and prudent persons, who were persuaded that a distinction must be made between the two Mélanies, between the innocent and simple voyante of 1846 and the visionary of 1879, whose mind had been disturbed by reading apocalyptic books and the lives of illuminati. As Rome uttered no decision the strife was prolonged between the disputants. Most of the defenders of the text of 1879 suffered censure from their bishops."
So, we have an approved Marian apparition (one of only 7) that had the secret of one of the visionaries published after the initial letter of approval of the messages. That later publication was also given an imprimatur, and then controversy ensued. Claiming that "wise and prudent persons" believed the latter message was apocryphal is not the same thing as the Holy See confirming that the secret published in 1979 was not identical to the one revealed to the holy father in 1951.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying: the matter is not settled. Which is why I said that it was not settled. (Have I mentioned that it's not settled?)
I reported this message because it was one of the pieces of the puzzle I saw before I did any research on any of this, and it provoked me to consider certain things. I disclaimed it because I realized it may not be authentic. But its content is corroborated in other ways.
So let's move on from LaSalette, because there's not much else to say.
The post led me to believe you felt the unapproved quote and Scripture put the puzzle together that the Body of Christ Itself becomes the antiChrist.
This is an impossibility. It doesn't make sense. But I do believe that it is possible for the hierarchy in Rome to apostasize -- particularly in the event that an antipope takes the throne, as has happened thirty times before. It is possible for a remnant, catacombed Church to be what remains of the Mystical Body, with a true pope among them. The papacy went to Avignon; if the need arose, nothing would stop it from going to New Jersey.
I don't know that it will happen, but I do think that it *could* happen. And I see enormous doctrinal confusion coming out of Rome now, which will make things easier for the Antichrist when he at last arrives. Diminish the faith enough, and there will be little resistance.
That should have read 1879 and 1851, not 1979 and 1951.
"I don't believe Fisheaters is a reliable source of information on approved apparitions.
Whether you believe it or not does not make it more or less true. If you have some reason to believe that, feel free to share it."
I guess I should have been more direct!
Fisheaters is a great forum. But there are numerous sedevacanists who post misinformation so you have to be careful.
I'm happy to share my thoughts.
If you go to the website operated by the Holy See, you are going to get precise information on what is and isn't approved.
If you go to Fisheaters, you are going to a site where people, including sedevacanists are posting. Consequently, that makes it unreliable as the source to find what is approved and what is not approved by the Church.
An imprimatur doesn't mean much - as you know.
I did in depth homework on this years ago and it would take me some time to gather up the info -- but I can assure you that the approved message did not include the controversial quote you use.
There is a lot of misinformation out there. As I have mentioned elsewhere, when one googles - and the quote leads to sedevacanists sites, there would be your clue!
The apparition was settled by the Holy See.
I also want to be clear that there is no interpretation of any of the saints, Scripture, approved materials of the RCC that points to the Catholic Church becoming the antichrist. (That is physiologically and spiritually impossible) - as it is the Body of Christ.
The Body of Christ is the Deposit of Faith which is bound. If it is bound - it is truth and we accept it as Christ accepts it. Good enough for Christ, good enough for us.
This makes it impossible for the Deposit of Faith to become corrupt.
There is plenty of evidence that the Romans are corrupt. The Romans are not Christ's Church - even the Pope - unless we are talking about the limited authority to bind and the 2000 years of what is bound.
So we have what is bound and the authority to bind - which can never be corrupt.
We have the Romans.
These are two different things.
There is plenty written about the former. No saint or legitimate source of approved messages has ever said anything to imply the latter. (As that would be impossible!)
"But I do believe that it is possible for the hierarchy in Rome to apostasize -- particularly in the event that an antipope takes the throne, as has happened thirty times before. It is possible for a remnant, catacombed Church to be what remains of the Mystical Body, with a true pope among them. The papacy went to Avignon; if the need arose, nothing would stop it from going to New Jersey.
I don't know that it will happen, but I do think that it *could* happen. And I see enormous doctrinal confusion coming out of Rome now, which will make things easier for the Antichrist when he at last arrives. Diminish the faith enough, and there will be little resistance. "
Steve, thanks for this discussion. I truly appreciate it. But I am still not clear on what you are saying above.
It is coming across to me as if you are saying a validly elected Pope could turn out to contradict Church teaching.
I'm with you there.
But then you seem to go onto imply that the validity of the bound Deposit of Faith is consequently poisoned and the faithful could end up holed up with another Pope in New Jersey?
Do I understand you on this one?
LOL - I'm sorry to be so pesky!
That can't happen. We are where the Chair of Peter is and we can never be divided from it. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Don't worry about that and just follow whatever is bound by the Chair of Peter and live by it.
Here's what we know: The Mystical Body follows Christ's three years on earth.
It is true it gets ugly. It is true priests and bishops defect - but they hand the Body of Christ over to the corrupt government. The government kills the Body of Christ - and plenty of us with it.
We are already seeing this happening at a rapid pace.
We are screwed. Who knows how long this will all play out but the diabolical disorientation is pretty hard to miss. It's as thick as pea soup. Like never before. And the muslims are killing us all over the world. In some countries -we have been annihilated completely.
No doubt Francis sees it too and he is frantic to find a way to bring salvation back to souls.
I couldn't help but draw the conclusion -- with your timing -- and the careful building of your thoughts - that you see Pope Francis as an apostate and the Deposit of Faith becoming corrupt and somewhere - we will be hiding out with an invalid pope.
You are not only on the slippery slope you've glided halfway down it. It is most disconcerting to me...
http://www.lasalette.org/images/stories/2009/structure_of_the_message/structure_of_the_message.pdf
http://www.lasalette.org/index.php/about-la-salette/apparition/the-story/705-the-message-of-la-salette
Steve, Above is the approved message.
Where did you see the bishop's imprimatur on the message that included your quote?
Very interesting discussion. As a soon to be canonized saint so eloquently stated:
"The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church. ...Pope Paul VI, Oct. 13, 1977 as quoted in Corriere della Sera, Page 7 of its issue dated October 14, 1977)"
I get a lot from this blog. I sure hope you aren't putting on the Michael Voris rose colored glasses.
Again -- this quote is about the Romans. NOT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH and THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHAIR OF PETER TO BIND.
The Romans working at the Holy See -- there's plenty of sulfur and has been for a very long time.
Not the Deposit of Faith bound with the authority and assent of Christ.
You want to know what happens?
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73012.htm
A woman clothed with the sun - is the Catholic Church. The place of wilderness prepared by God. The refuge.
:)
I am not sure Michael even owns a pair of rose-colored glasses!
I don't think I have any on...just did a whole lot of research myself about twenty years ago. I had every concern currently being expressed. Took me a couple of years to flush it all out.
Just sharing...
Carol, I just don't see how you're pulling out of Steve's words what you're pulling out. He never said the Church is (or will become) the anti-christ. For that matter he didn't say Francis was either. At most, he said Francis was acting as an anti John the Baptist...making the straight paths crooked. He didn't say that the deposit of faith is or would be corrupted; he (and others) said that this pope is teaching, and appointing others to teach as his hand-picked right hand men, things that are in opposition to that incorruptible deposit. He's saying in essence that the gates will not prevail against the Church, but that Peter and his capos are men acting in ways, and teaching things, that have been specifically warned against by other popes, and even anathemitzed by past councils.
Peter is making many good Catholics mighty nervous right now, and whether or not OL of Lasalette gave the contested quote, there are a small plethera of saints who have indeed given warnings and prophecies of the same thing. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but Peter can apostacize. St. Robert Bellermine gives very specific instructions for that very possibility.
This is new and frightening territory for everybody who knows anything about, or cares anything about, the Faith. To say that he's got the power to bind (his "checkmate" as you say) anything he wants, even to the point of binding Christ against Himself, is IMHO an untenable argument.
Steve's hit it dead on, and continued to engage in a reasoned, gentlemanly, exceedingly polite discourse; but I see his words and intentions twisted into something that's simply not there.
Erase this post too if you want...that won't change its veracity.
Thank you, Susan, for helping me to see that I am articulating what I think I'm articulating. I feel like TTC and I are having separate, only vaguely overlapping conversations. I'm not sure how else to say what I'm saying and make it any clearer. You've got me 100%.
I think I'm going to bow out for now. Susan, your efforts on my behalf are greatly appreciated.
Susan,
To claim Steve's post is not attempting to convey Pope Francis is an apostate and the saints and other told us Christ's Church would become the antichrist is really swimming in the river of denial.
You have repeatedly conveyed that you think Pope Francis is an apostate and you are thinking about defecting from Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is why, I presume, you find comfort in the false information provided in Steve's post that the Blessed Mother said Christ's Church would be headed by the antichrist.
I am trying to explain what this suggestion means mystically when I explain the impossibility that the Body of Christ and the antichrist cannot become one. It is not theology 101 and has to be thought about on a mystical level.
It cannot happen. It never will happen. Nobody ever need worry about it happening.
Both you and Steve keep repeating the falsehood that many saints have also told us that satan would be seated in the Chair of Peter.
You are both reading into things that are not there!! LOL
The actual quote the sedevacanists (including Fellay) try to claim our Blessed Mother said is as follows:
Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the antichrist.
If he didn't mean to convey that Pope Francis is the manifestation of the false quote - the post might need a re-write as the reader would draw such as a logical conclusion.
It is important to clarify that the quote Steve based his post upon was never said by our Blessed Mother, is NOT approved - and DOES NOT have a Bishops imprimatur. The apparition is approved but does not include that quote.
He is giving out false information he found on Fisheaters and as near as I can tell, he is implying the people who anonymously post there is as accurate as the Holy See!
Come on!
Steve is a gentleman. But more than that he is my brother and it is the action to clarify the misinformation he's fallen into and is now spreading around as approved by the Church, Saints and Blessed Mother.
Steve,
You gave the false quote veracity by using it in the context that it is 'unsettled' by the Church and implying there is an imprimatur on the quote somewhere - then using Scripture and the saints to lend more veracity.
It would seem that others who have given you more accurate context on the quote from Scripture - to disaffiliate it from Christ's Church - also read your post as implying corruption as the Body of Christ.
Given the misquotes and misinterpretation - it's a very reasonable conclusion from what you've written.
You've been very mistreated by the faithful in the past and I want to be sure that the context is tucked in so you remain anchored.
Sometimes people will try to twist good faith motives into something nefarious. Don't buy into it or get caught up in it.
God Bless.
Post a Comment