Parents beware “Charlie Challenge” game for kids May 28, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Domestic Church, error, family, General Catholic, paganism, scandals, secularism, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
1 comment so far
My wife thought I should post this. I think this new satanic game has already gotten a lot of coverage, but one never knows. There is apparently a new Ouija-type game out among kids that involves likely contact with the demonic. It’s called “Charlie Challenge:”
It seems to have come out of nowhere and gone viral in an instant. There is a new “game” sweeping middle schools called “The Charlie Challenge.” Superficially, it seems like a silly, harmless, childish fantasy. Kids make a grid on a piece of paper that says, “yes/no.” They make an X out of two pencils and attempt to summon an erstwhile demon named “Charlie.” Then they ask him questions which he answers by moving the pencils. It’s rather creepy to watch. (I won’t link the videos here because I have no interest in spreading the craze but it’s easy enough to find online if you want to look)…….. [I certainly won’t link to any]
……..Of course it all sounds like silly nonsense, except that it isn’t and in the mind of a middle school child, this game can be played for rather high stakes. Remember the 2 middle school girls who attempted to murder their friend to appease “Slenderman“? Sometimes child’s play isn’t just stuff and fluff.
I don’t normally link to Patheos, and some of the advice given after the quotes taken above reminds me why. It’s amazing how many folks take the Catechism of the 90s as the be all and end all of doctrine.
Faithful Catholics will know that messing around with anything even remotely demonic – and this seems more than remote – is incredibly stupid and dangerous. It is a good way to not only lose your soul, but also enter into a life of misery, as so many former satanists have attested. Unfortunately, the occult and demonic are all the rage in the culture today – given the collapse in morality and Christian life, go figure – from the Harry Potter books that spawned a huge genre of magic, demon, and occult related youth-oriented books, to zombies, to demon or occult focused video games, to you name it. The spread of pornography use among our youth is not unrelated to all the above.
I’m sure I don’t need to tell my good readers, but know what your kids are doing. Know who their friends are. And, for goodness sake, if at all possible school them at home. That will block over 90% of the potential for bad, even life-ruining, influence right there.
The occult and demonic are incredibly powerful. Demons have intellectual and other capacities further above ours that we are above an animal. Do not mess with them, ever! They will win, and you will not be able to control what you start! But provided we stay in the state of Grace, provided we receive the Sacraments and lead a pious life, we should have no problems from demons. If you start to play around with them, though……..you could find yourself in a world of hurt very, very quickly.
Francis’ recent statement regarding Christian persecution and the “devil-inspired ecumenism of blood,” was not his first foray into the topic. I’d like to introduce you to a significant effort reader D alerted me to, called the “Denzinger-Bergoglio,” a site by some faithful priests, with approval of their bishop(s), who take some of Pope Francis’ statements and then compare them to statements of the traditional Magisterium. The site started in Spanish for a Spanish milieu, but some like-minded priests are translating it into English. The priests of course remain anonymous.
The site takes it’s name from the Denzinger compendium of Catholic belief. What they are doing is comparing many of Pope Francis’ more troubling statements to the established doctrine of the Faith. As a sort of introduction to the site, I excerpt portions of their post on Pope Francis’ previous foray into examining this “ecumenism of blood,” in an interview given with Andrea Tornielli last year AND on other occasions. Since they excerpt Pope Francis’ statements at length, I will take only the highlights from those, and then some of the “responses” from the Church’s perennial belief:
PF: Are you Christian? Boom!……They don’t ask them if they are Pentecostal, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox… Are they Christians? They kill them because they believe in Christ. This is the ecumenism of blood.
Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood……
“For persecutors, we are not divided; we are not Lutherans, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Catholics…No! We are one in their eyes! For persecutors we are Christians! They are not interested in anything else. This is the ecumenism of blood that we experience today….Spiritual ecumenism and the ecumenism of blood.
“We offer this Mass for our 21 Coptic brothers, slaughtered for the sole reason that they were Christians”. “Let us pray for them, that the Lord welcome them as martyrs, for their families, for my brother Tawadros, who is suffering greatly.”
Now, some of the quotes from the Magisterium:
Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII)
-Salvation does not Exist Outside of the Church Even for Those who Have Shed their Blood for Christ
Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD)
-The ‘Martyrs’ of the Heretic are Aliens from God
Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe
-Non-Members of the Catholic Church Cannot be Saved, Even if they Shed Their Blood for the Name of Christ
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
-The Blood Shed by a Schismatic does not Wash Away the Stain of Sin
-The Torments Suffered by a Schismatic do not Serve as a Crown, but rather a Chastisement for his Perfidy
-The Baptism of Blood is Useless to a Heretic
-Those who, as Schismatics, do not Lead a Christian Life, do not Die as Martyrs
-Those who Rebel against the Body of Christ cannot presume to be persecuted for His Sake
-If a Schismatic Dies Guilty of Sacrilege how may He be Baptized by his Blood?
-The Same Furnace which Purifies the Martyrs, Reduces Heretics to Ashes
-Even if a Heretic Dies for one Article of the True Faith, He may not be Considered a Martyr
For each of the above, D-B then expands on the topic with quotes from the original source. To show you how that works, the bit from the Council of Florence (which, by the way, featured the temporary reunion of the schismatic Orthodox and the presence of Eastern Orthodox bishops) above expands to:
Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII):
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger-Hünermann 1351. Council of Florence, Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites, February 4, 1442)
OK, how about that Synod of Laodicea?
Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD):
Canon 9: The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyrs of any of the heretics, for prayer or service. […]
Canon 34: No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema. (Synod of Laodicea, The Canons, Canon 9/34)
Finally, they add a critically important supplement to the above with resources on so-called invincible ignorance, which has quite often been abused to morph into a kind of catch-all means of salvation for heretics and schismatics. Great stuff:
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. […] if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. […] A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica II-II q. 5, a. 3)
You get the point. You can go to the D-B site to read all the rest of the citations they have.
They do not draw conclusions. They let Catholics, guided by faith and reason, reach their own. I’ll do the same. Note, they have commentary on many of Pope Francis’ voluminous statements. There is quite a bit of analysis there, the site is really a valuable resource.
I will add this, however. While the volume and extent of surprising statements from the papacy has certainly appeared to increase with Pope Francis, in truth, all of the post-conciliar pontiffs, even John Paul I, have made quite similar statements at times. You can even find them occasionally in John XXIII and, more rarely, Pius XII. Some try to use that as evidence of “A ha! See, Pope Francis isn’t doing anything different from them, he must be OK!” I see that continuity, to the degree it exists, less as an explanation and justification of Pope Francis’ words and actions, but more as an indication that the Church has suffered from a severe lack of catechesis and leadership, even at the very top, for decades.
Denise Shick was raised by a gravely disordered and perverse father, a man who thought he was a woman. She relates how devastating this experience was for her as a girl growing up, leading to early substance abuse and grave psychological difficulties that, I imagine, persist to this day. She is writing in reaction to President Hussein’s recent declaration that he thinks “transgendered” individuals should be able to adopt. Her crowning point, which cannot be repeated enough, is that, as with every other sexular pagan innovation, it is the children who most bear the cost of the adult’s new-found sexual “freedom” (emphasis and comments per usual):
In a presidential proclamation for National Foster Care Month, Obama wrote, “With so many children waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure all qualified caregivers have the opportunity to serve as foster or adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.”…… [This is garbage. There are thousands of normally married couples out there waiting to adopt, but babies are going to sodomites and, God forbid, “transgenders,” due to progressive inclinations at many adoption agencies and the superior riches of many of the perverse. It is highly debatable that there is a true shortage of married couples desiring to adopt]
……I was raised by a transgender father.
I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father. [This is heart-breaking]
I was so hungry for my father; a transgender “mom” would not fit that need no matter how badly the adult wished it to. [And, the same applies to two “moms,” or two “dads,” or, frankly, single parents. I know single parenthood is very common and there are people abandoned by their spouses who did nothing to deserve it, but it is still a deficient/disordered situation, at best]
My father experimented with my make-up and clothes, and by 7th grade I had decided that alcohol was the easiest method to numb my own pain. By the beginning of high school, I wondered if life was worth living.
There is nothing more painful for a daughter than to watch her dad put on a bra or have him wear your clothes. No daughter should have to place her clothes in her dresser drawers by a code so she can know if he had been pawing through her underclothes. [And this is supposed to be not just “normal” now, but good, brave, transgressive! What a load of satanic LIES we are fed!]
It is not fair or healthy for a daughter to feel guilty about her developing body, or about becoming a woman. But in today’s world we encourage children to accept their parent’s sexual desires. We prioritize adult’s sexual preferences ahead of what is best for their children. [That’s been the entire point of the sexual revolution, to get adults to dissociate the pleasure of their gonads from the procreation and raising of children. And it has been children – aborted children, contracepted children, abandoned children, children of divorce, poor little girls absolutely tortured like this one, who have paid the price.]
As a culture we are very willing to address the emotional distress, isolation and other negative issues of people who come out as transgender adults. But we have not even begun to discuss the issues involved and the impact this has on their wives and children.
Of course not! Because that would undermine the agenda of creating a neo-pagan sexualarist Brave New World!
It is actually a tremendous blessing the wheels are going to fly off of this thing, that this culture is almost certainly headed for collapse, given what it will surely become absent such. But God will not be mocked, and He will allow our own sins to destroy us. Economically, morally, culturally, this culture is either dead or on life support. Politically and militarily will not come far behind that. There will be grievous persecution first, then, the collapse.
Beyond that, either centuries of Catholic rebuilding, or the survivors will get a crash course in eschatology.
American culture accelerates embrace of immorality, poll shows. Rubio says America poised for persecution of Christians May 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, martyrdom, mortification, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
This country has got a death wish, apparently. A new Gallup poll – feel free to debate its accuracy – shows that America has lurched decisively leftward in the past few years, especially since 2009 (remember that bit about fundamentally transforming America?). Support for grave immorality has increased almost across the board, while an equal number of Americans, for the first time since the poll began in 1999, describe themselves as “very liberal” socially as do “very conservative.” I hold this latter bit to be far less significant than the detailed findings of the poll, which, again, show support by Americans for the gravest immorality increasing substantially in the past 15 years:
There’s been quite a bit of variation in that data. I find it pretty hard to believe that the US was 42% conservative in 2009, and only 31% today. I have a feeling this particular portion of the poll will probably swing differently in a few years. We’ve seen the same with polls on support for abortion, where occasional ones show Americans tied between pro-abort or pro-life positions (in reality, belief is much more nuanced, the vast majority of Americans favor a much more restrictive abortion regime than we have now), but then a year or two later they show support for abortion substantially lower than opposition.
But, as I said, the more troubling aspects are in the details:
No surprise how much support for sodomy has skyrocketed. That support for illegitimate birth and fornication should see similar increases is no accident, all this is tied to a fundamental rejection – or at least ignorance of – the vital need for the coherent family of father, mother, and children. Since so many now view sex as a sterile act oriented solely towards personal pleasure, no wonder they have no problem with sodomy.
And, we can easily predict where the cultural pathology will take us next: polygamy, cloning, euthanasia, etc. We also see the idiocy of the progressive leftist mentality in comparing things like wearing animal fur and medical testing on animals to abortion and sodomy. Lunacy. But at least people still oppose marital infidelity……..I really have to wonder, on what possible grounds, since it seems everything else is just fine? And how would they view sodomite “marriage” if they knew that even the most “committed” of these poor lost people regularly fornicate with others outside their “stable, long term” relationships?
Incredible the degree of moral carnage our culture is now willing to call good. I’m reading After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre, and he was arguing 35 years ago that people are so morally lost today, and have been for a long time, that they no longer even have the capability to divine what is good and what is bad. This poll certainly bears that out. What these people do not understand (and note the connection with collapse in Christian practice in this country and the collapse in morality), is that by rejecting a transcendent source of Truth and embracing a relativist mentality, they are setting up the conditions where everything, not just morality, but also economics, politics, education, etc., will come down to will-to-power. It took centuries for the virtues inherent in Catholic Christendom to create Western civilization as we know it, and it is all being destroyed in a few short years. We are returning to the barbarism of pre-Christian times very rapidly.
Today, his deep faith drives public policy positions on social issues such as traditional marriage.
“If you think about it, we are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,” Rubio told CBN News. “Because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”
“So what’s the next step after that?” he asked.
“After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there’s a real and present danger,” he warned. [I’d say that is a very visible danger]
To give us an object lesson in how sexular pagans, especially those of the more perverse inclinations, will interpret Catholic-Christian belief as ‘hate speech,’ see this response one commentator made to Rubio’s interview:
Mr. Rubio, despite great provocation [what provocation – believing what essentially everyone believed 15-20 years ago?!? Repeating 2000 years of constant Christian-Jewish-Muslim belief, a belief set well over half the world’s population claims to adhere to?!?] by you and others like you, LGBTs and their supporters—many of whom are Christian, by the way [No, they are poor lost souls who might incidentally attend a Christian-like sect or self-profess to be Christians. That doesn’t make them so] —who back equality actually think you can say and think whatever you like, as long as it doesn’t incite violence and hatred. If it does, they will object, as any reasonable person might. [Note his attempt to sneak in a massive limitation on free speech – a problematic doctrine, to be sure – by expanding the Supreme Court’s limitation on free speech that might pose an immediate danger to people – shouting fire in a crowded theater – and adding an incredibly nebulous term – “hatred.” Which he plainly means any speech he really, really doesn’t like]
If you claim that LGBTs do not deserve marriage equality, and your argument has the ring of prejudice about it—and it necessarily would because you are arguing against the principles of equality—then expect to be called out for it.
But you are not being silenced. You are being disagreed with.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. People are being silenced when the sodomite lobby forces passage of laws that cause the state to sue individuals for hundreds of thousands of dollars who refuse to provide flowers for a fake wedding profoundly abhorrent to their most cherished beliefs. Christians are being silenced and having their lives ruined all over this country for desiring not to give their visible support to something they know to be a grave moral evil. This is not “disagreement.” This is a deliberate, hateful campaign of vicious persecution, and this guy is prevaricating mightily in calling it anything else.
But the entire pro-sodomy campaign in the culture, going back nearly 30 years now, has always had to wrap itself in a cloak of lies in order to gain public support. Immoral lives that involve hundreds of partners, wickedly immoral sexual practices (including a near-endemic predilection for young boys), rampant drug and alcohol abuse, severe psychological problems, and sky-high suicide rates are all kept carefully concealed from the public. A completely false, sanitized vision of these perverse lifestyles is sold in it’s place. Likewise, since those lost in these sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance crave constant affirmation for their perversion to shout down the quiet voice inside them that tells them how wrong their mode of living truly is, they cannot stand to have even a tiny minority continue to refute their disordered lusts and perverted desires. Thus, faithful Christians must, of necessity, be crushed and driven from the public square. That is also kept closely hidden with demonically hypocritical language arguing for “equality,” “tolerance,” and “acceptance” – all of which the movement (not to say all individuals) necessarily denies to Christians.
These people conflate “hate” with having to hear things they really, really don’t like. Such reactions are becoming epidemic in the increasingly dyspeptic left.
But even more, this movement quite literally cannot abide ANY public criticism or contradiction. And, in a very real sense, the more they gain acceptance and drive moral condemnation from the public sphere, the more that which remains drives them batty and the more they want to see it gone.
So get ready for a very, very rough ride in which we will have almost no allies. Once persecution gets really revved up, we can expect many now bearing the Christian name to fall away, or join perverse sects that set Christian moral doctrine on its ear (many are already around). I fear we will also be told by many in the Church what rotten, bad Catholics we are, and we may well be escorted to the figurative or literal gallows with Church officials hectoring us to “repent” along the way, just as the English martyrs did.
The key to surviving this while keeping our Faith and saving our soul is to cling to Our Eucharistic Lord and Our Lady. Only They can keep our faith whole in such a trial.
Pray for those who would persecute us!
There has been a great deal of debate and discussion in (what is easiest to distinguish as faithful) Catholic circles regarding whether it is possible for Catholics to criticize a Pope at all. Some take the stand that such criticism is always extremely dangerous and imprudent and really should never be done. I have always found this argument silly, since it would at a minimum destroy historical analysis of the Church as a profession, and is a direct criticism of the writings of too many Saints and great Catholics to list, going back many centuries, who have certainly made critical analyses of papacies of the past. In practice, the rule really seems to be “it is impermissible to criticize the reigning, or recently reigning, pontiffs, especially those since the sainted, indefectible Council,” while it is OK to take to task the actions and judgments of pontiffs distant past.
Whatever. I’ve always tried to steer a middle course, avoiding gratuitous judgments of any Pope, past or present, while steadfastly pointing out imprudent actions or even errors promoted that could affect the faith of many souls. You cannot block papal PR coverage. Word is going to get out, and people, especially better formed souls, are not blind. They will make their own judgments. It has always seemed to me that it is far better to point out problematic statements or actions with charity and basic fairness, rather than attempt to cover up that which cannot be covered. Certainly, it is better not to point out Noah’s, or Francis’, nakedness, but when that nakedness is apparent for all to see (and receiving worldwide coverage), it is not only necessary, but vitally necessary to explain why the nakedness is wrong (or problematic with respect to the Doctrine of the Faith), rather than to pretend it doesn’t exist.
It may be a gross comparison, but I’d say such is the tack advocated by Steve Skojec in a long post at One Peter Five on the permissibility of criticism of the papacy. I will skip the quite extensive groundwork he lays (but will note, he is quite right that criticizing the papacy does not mean Christ’s promise that His Church will never fail is invalid, but is in fact a defense of that Truth), and get to some of the justifications he uses for his position (original, I add comments):
Put more simply: we didn’t make this mess, but pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it go away. Want people to stay faithful? Help them to see how what’s happening doesn’t mean Catholicism is false, but rather, is suffering exactly as we were always told it would. Show them what is true, and what the limitsand boundaries of assent require. Give them a path forward, not out. [An excellent point. I personally know 2 individuals who deferred, if not gave up on, their plans to convert, because they are now utterly confused on what the Church believes. That’s only my own narrow experience. The plain fact is, people are being exposed to the Pope’s more confusing/troubling statements, and without correction, their assumption is that what the media is telling them is true and accurate, that irreformable Catholic belief is changing, or may change]
To that end, we need to look to our Church’s history. Would we say that the bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople, which posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius I for heresy, were “spiritual pornographers” or scandalizers of the faithful? Would we make such claims about the Theology faculty at the University of Paris who opposed the heresies in the personal sermons of Pope John XXII — or King Philip VI, who forbade them from being taught? [Or really holy men like Bossuett, who made some value judgments about some preceding and even near-contemporary papal actions in public]
Taken further, would we make such claims about St. Paul, who publicly reprimanded the very first pope, the one chosen by Christ Himself?
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – Galatians 2:11
A pope is still a man — and thus, a sinner — and can make mistakes. Paul withstood Peter for the simple reason that he was “to be blamed” – in other words, culpably in error. [Long excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas follows that I do not copy, you should read it]
……St. Thomas makes the important distinction between an exercise of authority — a papal action — and authority of ruling — the power and authority inherent in the papal office. He asserts that if public actions of a prelate — even the pope — cause “danger” that is “imminent,” then the “truth must be preached openly” and “the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others.” Further, if it is true that these prelates must not “disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them,” then any argument that the faithful and clergy must not publicly address a pope’s public errors, misleading statements, or actions for fear of scandalizing the faithful is without merit. [I’d say this is a fair representation of St. Thomas’ argument]
On the contrary, there is a positive duty to keep such errors from spreading if one possesses the ability to identify and charitably elucidate them. This is of paramount importance in order to instruct or correct those who might be led into sin by believing these errors. This is not merely a hypothetical, but something that has become a real problem with (to use examples that quickly come to mind) misconceptions following the Synod that the pope has changed the rules for the divorced and remarried on receiving Holy Communion, or in the case of those who have taken Pope Francis’s “Who am I to judge?” as a tacit endorsement of same-sex relationships. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include “instructing the ignorant,” “counseling the doubtful,” and “admonishing the sinner.” At various levels, any (or all) of these three works of mercy might apply in a redress of these errors.
We would also do well to remember that the non-theological actions of popes can also be scandalous. Popes like Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Sergius III, John XII, Alexander VI, Innocent IV, and Urban VI come prominently to mind. These popes — all of them valid — were reported variously to have taken part in scheming, simony, murder, adultery, rape, torture, sodomy, bestiality, desecration of the corpse of a predecessor, and other horrific crimes. [It was these kinds of non-theological actions that Bossuett and others have pointed out were scandalous. That was no sin. Many others, also many holy men, have pointed out that Clement XIII’s politically-motivated suppression of the Jesuits was unfair and may have played a role not only in the French Revolution but the ascendance of liberal thought in the latter 18th and 19th centuries. That does not make them bad Catholics for doing so]
While Pope Francis has certainly not been accused of acts such as these, many of his papal appointments have empowered men who have no business in leadership positions in the Church, and whom, as in the case of Fr. Radcliffe, represent an actual danger to the faith. Men who speak to the media, making statements on the pope’s behalf, leading us to believe that he agrees with their heterodox agendas.
And when reports of the pope’s more controversial (alleged) opinions or activities disseminate through the global press — reports which many faithful Catholics find troubling — they are very rarely addressed or corrected, despite a Vatican press office and a PR executive in his employ, both of which are meant to monitor the news and ensure that the Vatican is being represented accurately in the media. The mechanisms are in place to analyze the message the world is receiving, but a choice is made not to clarify. The impression given is that silence gives consent…….. [I’d add just a bit more. A Pope who behaves scandalously in his private life, or even somewhat publicly, by insisting on gaudy riches, a lavish lifestyle, sexual incontinence, etc – is one kind of scandal. Yes, especially since Popes have not been known to do so for many centuries, it would cause a great deal of confusion. But I’m not sure that is as severe a scandal, or causes such confusion, as troubling statements related to Doctrine, the right practice of the Faith, ecumenism, etc. Those affect the Faith on a more fundamental level, and, I think, are even more necessary to comment on]
…….If the Vatican does not choose to speak to these issues by reaffirming Church teaching, may we, the faithful, not do so in an attempt to mitigate the damage? We do not have the luxury of living in the historically disconnected world, where statements of the pope took months to reach any given diocese by letter, if at all. Our always-on, Internet connected planet presents a new reality not encountered by the ancient Church: every thought and action of a figure as high profile as a pope is instantly broadcast to billions, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. They are forming opinions of what we believe based on what they hear and see, whether or not it is accurately represented. Is there to be no corrective action taken by anyone if the Holy See takes none itself?
As cited by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Felix III admonished:
“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”
It seems indisputable, then, that we must resist error — even from a pope, who may fall into such outside the parameters of the infallibility of his office and most particularly in his personal judgments.
In the 16th century, we see this understanding succinctly expressed by Melchior Cano, a Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent. It is taken from his De Locis Theologicis — a text the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates “certainly ranks with the most lauded productions of the Renaissance” and “in the estimation of some critics … made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas.”
“Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.”
It seems equally clear that none of us may use such criticism as an excuse to abandon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. [Agreed!] We may not decide for ourselves that any given occupant of the See of Peter is not the pope, for it lies outside our competence to make such judgments. We must submit to every legitimate exercise of his authority, showing obedience in all areas where obedience is due. [Which is really quite limited. And this Pope has chosen thus far to avoid invoking his charism of infallibility in official doctrinal pronouncements for the universal Church.]
OK, I’ve stolen more than enough, but I don’t think I took even 1/3 of the post’s material! As I said, it’s pretty long (~3500 words?), but quite valuable.
I generally try to go even a bit further on the side of prudent caution than the above, generally restricting my commentary to admittedly pointed, even leading questions, regarding this papal statement or that papal act. I’ve written a lot on this Pope, and certainly don’t recall every single thing I’ve ever written, but I generally try very hard from making definitive judgments regarding his deeds, limiting myself to those questions or addressing, at most, the prudence of whatever is under consideration. That’s just my point of view, it doesn’t have to be yours, and I generally don’t have a problem with those who vary on either side – towards a more cautious, non-critical approach, or a more openly critical one. I do start to have a bit of a problem when those who adhere to one of those positions tries to dictate to others what is permissible for them to do in this regard. I have always believed as Skojec (and many others) do, and as I think they have demonstrated through strongly reasoned argument, it is licit to point out problematic acts or statements if it is done in in a charitable manner that does not involve final value judgments (this Pope is a heretic, protestant, demon, etc).
YMMV. May the fireworks begin.
Pope Francis: It may be a heresy, but I agree with the devil that all Christians are one? – UPDATED May 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Pat Archbold has an explosive post related to Pope Francis that is quite possibly the most troubling statement made by this Pontiff yet. After acknowledging that what he says may not only be controversial, but heretical, he then pronounces that he agrees with the devil that all Christians, be they evangelical, Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholics, or “Apostolic,” are “one.” He even pauses, announces out loud his doubts about what he is tempted to say, but then goes ahead and says it anyway. This starts at 4:10 in the video below:
Now, there are some people at CMR that are attacking Mr. Archbold severely, pretending that Pope Francis did not say what he plainly said. He is speaking in Spanish, which I read much better than I speak, but I’ve listened to the Pope and read the translation about 10 times now and it’s very close to how I would translate it. They leave out a bit that I think is important which I’ll include in the transcript below, which is mostly from the subtitles of the video but I make a few changes:
“I feel like saying something that may sound controversial……….or even heretical, I don’t know. But there is someone who “knows” (sabe – the verb used conveys knowing an intellectual fact) that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us*. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom** He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care (or he is not interested) that they are Evangelicals , Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, or Apostolic……he does not care! They are Christians! And that blood unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an “ecumenism of blood.”
* – So the devil is using muslims as the vehicle of his persecution? Is this statement intended to absolve muslims for their guilt in murdering Christians around the world in their thousands every month? “The devil made them do it?”
**- So the devil now anoints us? What is he anointing us with? The blood – grace – of martyrdom. So the devil is playing a key role in the dispensing of grace?
Now, there has been tremendous confusion in the Church on just this subject of the ostensible unity of Christians in the post-conciliar period. This confusion is a prime reason why so many Catholics of conscience have serious concerns over Dignitatis Humanae and other VII products, documents that played key roles in introducing novel concepts regarding just who constitutes the Church and what means unity. The souls arguing against Archbold on this narrow point (he also brings up the scandal of appointing Fr. Timothy Radcliffe to a position of influence at the Vatican, and the Pope’s silence on the Irish sodo-“marriage” vote – those concerns get crickets, everyone is focused on this devil-unity statement) seem very confused on this matter – some persistently argue that because protestant baptisms can be valid, that means unity with the Church. But “unity” properly understood extends far beyond that, and once a protestant, possessing the proper mental faculties, accepts protestant errors condemned by the Church, the Grace of baptism is lost as he has now chosen to place himself outside the Church. This used to be clear. Virtually all Catholics used to firmly believe that those outside the Church had only the dimmest chances of salvation – if they believed they had any at all. But not anymore – which is why a lot of very bright souls wonder how it is possible to reconcile major aspects of the pre-and post-conciliar Magisterium.
Back to the Pope’s statement – my good Lord, have mercy on us. Has there ever been a Pope who would preface a highly controversial (and dubious) theological proposition with, essentially, “This may make me a heretic, but…….?” Simply on the prudential level, for any Catholic to make a public pronouncement like that is simply incredible, but for a prelate, let alone THE POPE?!?!?! There simply are no words.
Even if what he were saying were 100% orthodox, to be so imprudent as to promote uncertainty in the Pope’s theological standing, to assail the dignity of the office with a statement that, according to the Pope, might be heretical, to scandalize millions by declaring “I’m just not certain if this is heresy or not, which could land you and me in hell for all eternity, but here goes!”……just wow.
We are in totally uncharted waters. Yes, yes, John XXII, but that was one narrow matter on which he was clear he spoke as a private theologian. We get no such reassurances here. And it is almost certainly much more than one narrow topic.
We are deep into the Passion of the Church, indeed. Our Lady warned us and warned us……
UPDATE: More analysis from Eliot Bougis. Much of his commentary is directed at Jimmy Akin’s endless, credibility-snapping apologias for papal statements over the past 2 years, including this one. A quote from that commentary, including a statement by Pope Francis I did not address above:
Third, the biggest problem arises from his claim that the wound of division exists “in the body of the Church”. This is utterly false, and in the “heretical” kind of way, to be sure. The Church is ONE and SPOTLESS; all such “division” is extrinsic to Her. Ironically enough, the divisions Pope Francis is addressing are themselves the result of schismatic Protestant history and an ongoing refusal to seek communion with Rome. So, by calling such divisions the work of the Devil, he’s right–all schism is diabolical, including that fostered by the organizers of the John 17 Movement! [Which meeting in Arizona the Pope’s video was addressing]
Fourth, by saying that “from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, [he] will be with [the John 17 participants] spiritually,” and that he desires to “join [them] as just another participant” in the event, he vaults over the otherwise safe area of merely praying with non-Catholics and dives into formal co-celebration with them. The event in Arizona included Bible teaching and worship, not mere prayers, so, by uniting his person and intentions with the participants, Pope Francis has formally and publicly united himself as a member of Protestant worship,* which is a no-no, even in the post-Conciliar age (cf.Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 8). But, hey, who am I to judge?
Not that any of the above matters, of course. It doesn’t matter what this pope says, whose pious ears he offends, what traditional doctrine and laws he undermines and obscures. He’s the pope, after all. It’s all his show. As “faithful Catholics” we’re just expected to smile and nod.
More shortly, God willing.
Many have probably already seen the video of a talk given by Fr. Linus Clovis on the ‘Francis Effect’ in the Church. It is a most remarkable and explosive speech. The content is most unusual in its unflinching clarity and his appraisal of the perception so many of the most faithful Catholics have regarding this pontificate. He actually makes a joke of the old line “is the Pope Catholic?,” turning it into a real question. He also notes the corrosive effect on Doctrine the past 2-plus years have seen.
He also argues quite convincingly that Catholics can never pit bits of Scripture against each other, Dogma against Dogma, or put new “pastoral” approaches against the traditional practice of the Faith.
Since this has probably already been seen by many, I won’t provide any more synopsis, but I will say it is quite worth watching in its entirety and that we truly live in remarkable times, when apparently good, devout priests feel compelled to stand up and say that there are things being put forth, even at the highest levels of the Church, which are contrary to the Faith as it has been handed on to us. The priest’s main conclusion is that the ‘Francis Effect’ is having the effect of silencing faithful Catholics and giving succor to the Church’s most avowed opponents:
“The Pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God,” and, I might add, all of Sacred Tradition.
BTW, I was also sent a link to a website begun for Spanish-speaking Catholics by regular diocesan priests, comparing many of Pope Francis’ statements against the perennial Magisterium of the Church. An English companion site has also been created. You can read analyses of many of the more, ah…….unexpected……..statements from Pope Francis. No conclusions are reached. The priests – who are anonymous since they do not want to attract unwanted attention to themselves or their bishops, who are knowledgeable of this effort – simply present the Pope’s words and then various statements from the Magisterium related to them. Expect to see more on this effort in the coming days.
Reader D also sent me a link to an interview given by Fr. Linus Clovis, I believe sometime last year, below. The subject of this interview was Fr. Clovis’ denial of Communion to a pro-abort politician after his country, St. Lucia, legalized baby killing back in 2004:
Fr. Clovis notes how his own diocese did not really back him on his refusal to see Christ blasphemed, stating that he should have given the politician Communion with a warning that he would not do so next time (which is frankly a far better position than most US Dioceses, which would have simply thrown the priest under the bus in the service of continuing political “favor” – but favor at the barrel of a gun is no favor at all). But it’s none too comforting to find out his own archbishop told him he had “no right” to refuse Communion, and who also claimed ignorance of the personage of Cardinal Ratzinger – the future Pope Benedict XVI! Wow.
If you want to sere more of Fr. Clovis, there are a number of videos on Youtube featuring him (here’s one). I have not watched any of them, so YMMV. This channel seems to have many of them, along with many other priests.
Finally, and as a bit of fun, I post the following for Rex. The Carlists had an awesome march, the Oriamendi. I don’t know if it would be a winning move to start calling our men’s prayer vigil outside strip clubs a Requete, though the idea is tempting. I especially like their very wide Navarre berets.
My probably bad translation:
For God Country and King!
Our fathers fought!
For God country and king!
We fight as well!
We fight all together
All together in union
Defending the flag of Sacred Tradition!
We fight all together
All together in union
Defending the flag of Sacred Tradition!
Regardless of the cost we will pay it
until the red berets enter Madrid!
For God Country and King!
Our fathers fought!
For God country and king!
We fight as well!
More awesomeness on the Requete:
Dios Patria Fueros Rey! Viva Christo Rey!
In the United States of the 60s and 70s – but much more importantly, throughout the Church in the former Christendom – the disastrous undermining of Dogma by influential elements within the Church’s own hierarchy played a huge role in the advance of radically immoral social changes. This was apparent with Cardinal Cushing’s under the table deal with Planned Barrenhood to actually oppose Catholic opposition to the legalization of contraception in the Massachusetts legislature in the early 60s, American Jesuit leadership collaborating with the Kennedy family in orchestrating their switch from a pro-life to a pro-abort position, and weak to non-existent opposition to many liberal social trends throughout those two decades in state after state, court case after court case, from prelates all around the country.
We’ve seen another instance of the Church hierarchy not only failing in its duty to promote and defend the moral order, but even making statements that seem to argue for its dissolution, even against Church Doctrine, in the debacle that just occurred in formerly Catholic Ireland, where nearly 2/3 of the population determined that neither God nor Nature would inform their conscience, and approved the most unnatural perversions as being equivalent to “marriage.” Rorate Caeli reminds us of some of the very poor leadership given by two of Ireland’s most prominent prelates, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin and Bishop Donal McKeown of Derry. Both of these men, especially the former, have played leading roles in the destruction of the Church in Ireland over the past 30 odd years, from installation of perverse men and agendas at the country’s leading seminary to their – very apparent – tortured uncertainty over whether to oppose so-called marriage between sodomites. First, Archbishop Martin attempting to defend Church Doctrine (I add emphasis and comments):
The problem in many ways is that the Church has often in the past presented its message poorly. [I certainly agree with that, but not for the reasons Martin puts forth] What is a message of love was presented in language that was harsh. What was rational argument was presented as a dogma which all should accept. [Typical progressive belief: Dogma is somehow irrational. That is because they do not accept it] The truth about Jesus Christ can only be proclaimed in love.[This is an unfortunate and even dangerous statement. Such a careless statement can easily be taken to mean that the Church’s entire moral edifice, throughout Her entire history, has been dangerously wrong, or at least harshly expressed, and thus of dubious merit to every single living soul on the planet. This is a really terrible thing for a bishop to say] This is a challenge in today’s culture where often there is a clash of viewpoints and where we find it difficult at times to bring the message of our faith into a culture where faith is considered out of place in public discourse. The fact that in the past the Church was dogmatic in its attempted imposition of its views rather than engage in rational societal debate, does not justify people today replacing “sound-bite-ism” for dogmatism as a way of avoiding rational debate. [How many people alive today have any experience of the Church being “harsh” or “dogmatic?” The reason the Church’s message of morality in a context of love of self, neighbor, and God has not reached men is because IT HAS NOT BEEN TAUGHT! At all! Especially by men like Martin, who have always cowered from challenging the dominant cultural mores, such as they are, preferring to serve men rather than God]
****An ethics of equality does not require uniformity. There can be an ethic of equality which is an ethic of recognising and respecting difference. A pluralist society can be creative in finding ways in which people of same-sex orientation have their rights and their loving and caring relationships recognised and cherished in a culture of difference, while respecting the uniqueness of the male-female relationship. [How on earth can the few faithful Catholics in Ireland now defend the Doctrine of the Faith, deploring the evils of sodomy in every form, now that their Archbishop has told the entire world how wonderful they are within their own context and in a “culture of difference?”] I know that the harshness with which the Irish Church treated gay and lesbian people in the past – and in some cases still today – may make it hard for LGBT people to accept that I am sincere in what I am proposing.[Oh, go get ’em tiger! You’re a real rock of the Faith. I bet Saint Peter can’t wait to welcome you as a brother at the pearly gates. What he’s basically pleading is: “Though we’ve been wrong on the past on just about everything, can’t you at least throw us a bone, and especially me, tortuously conflicted as I am on this matter, so that I won’t even have to pretend to fight you on some later date? Can’t you make this easy on me and go with some “civil union” rigmarole that will let me play this matter off most easily to my constituency, both left and right?”]
Although he maintained that legalizing same-sex “marriage” would be a “dangerous experiment,” especially the ramifications in the lives of children and future generations, he equivocated that people could vote yes or no in the referendum “in good conscience,” if they were as informed as possible before voting and were making a “mature decision.” [Ah, the good ‘ol primary error of Dignitatis Humanae, the “primacy of the individual conscience,” no matter how badly, even demonically formed, strikes again! But do you think Bishop McKeown or any other Church progressive would grant so much latitude to, say, a rapacious “capitalist” that thought and prayed about his decision to defraud his workers of their wages?!? Of course not! Because being a greedy, conservative capitalist is not on the list of “approved” sins by the progressive hierarchy!]
“People have to make their own mature decision, be it yes or be it no. I would hate for people to be voting no for bad reasons, for bigoted reasons, for nasty reasons, for bullying reasons. People have to make up their own minds and I’m quite happy that people can do that in front of God, be it yes or be it no,” Bishop McKeown said. [And now he equivocates voting against sodomite pretend marriage with bigotry, nastiness, and bullying! Oh, we sure have an heir of the Apostles in this pathetic creature, don’t we?!?]“I don’t doubt that there are many people who are practicing churchgoers of whatever church background who will in conscience vote Yes, and that’s entirely up them. I’m not going to say they’re wrong,” he added. [I doubt you’d ever say anything that weighs against the prevailing secular pagan orthodoxy.]
1 comment so far
I will be praying outside The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on Wednesday June 3, at 8 pm. I will actually be across the street in the parking lot of the US Post Office. This is directly across from the entrance to the inappropriately named “gentleman’s club.”
There was a great turnout last month. I pray all of you are able to come back out next Wednesday. For those who made suggestions on how to improve this effort going forward, I’ve replied to some but not all. Please have patience with me, I will get back to you or we can discuss June 3 in person. I do have a failing in always replying to folks who contact me because I get quite a bit of correspondence.
The post office parking lot is well lit and set back some distance from the very busy roadway. It is public land so we cannot be harassed for being there. It’s really an ideal situation, we are basically impossible to miss by patrons leaving this SOB. Men over 18 only. All men are welcome. You don’t have to be a member of a particular parish.
No protesting, just prayer. No interaction with the patrons at this time. That may come later. We’ll see.
This is a small way to push back against the culture of license, perversion, and death. Maybe it’s even a way to get that canonized “smell of the sheep” we hear so much about.
I pray you are able to make it. Bring your friends. Fly in from out of town! Rent buses!
Well, well, well…….if it isn’t Robert Gates, continuing his disastrous leadership in yet another critically important American institutions. After essentially destroying the defense acquisition process in his turn as Secretary of Defense, he now apparently intends to insure the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) is well and truly leveled during his administration.
Not that their present position – admitting Scouts with perverse inclinations into their ranks, but not Scoutmasters with the same affliction – is in any way tenable. I wrote at the time they disastrously surrendered that it would’t be more than a year or two before just this happened, that they would have men given over to the most unnatural lusts, the vast majority of whom allow their faculties in that regard to run wild, serving in leadership positions. Well, I was just about spot-on, Gates has all but called to lift the ban on sodo-Scout leaders (thanks to MFG):
The Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay leaders “cannot be sustained,” said president Robert Gates in remarks prepared for this week’s National Annual Meeting being held in Atlanta.
In his speech, which was posted to the Scouts’ website today and is available below, the former U.S. Defense Secretary and CIA director says he is not asking for a policy change — not yet, anyway. But, he says, “I must speak as plainly and bluntly to you as I spoke to presidents when I was director of the CIA and secretary of defense. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
The Irving-based Boy Scouts lifted its ban on openly gay youth members at its May 2013 meeting at the Gaylord Texan — much to the displeasure of then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry. But it continues to prohibit openly gay adults from serving as volunteers or paid BSA staffers.
In his speech, Gates points out that many councils are “openly” challenging the current policy — among them, for instance, the Boy Scouts’ Greater New York Councils, which recently hired an openly gay 18-year-old as a camp counselor. Said Gates, expect that trend to continue.
“While technically we have the authority to revoke their charters, such an action would deny the lifelong benefits of Scouting to hundreds of thousands of boys and young men today and vastly more in the future,” he says in the prepared remarks. “I will not take that path. [So, you’ve given up. Shocking. If you took a strong stand now, you could nip this trend in the bud, but by announcing you will take no action, you are not only insuring many more poor, morally lost souls will try to gain positions of influence in the Scouts, but, even more, you are positively encouraging them to do so. You’re basically announcing, on the QT, I’m in support of this, I will do nothing to stop it. Remember to check out the Troops of Saint George for a solidly Catholic alternative to the Boy-Rape Scouts]
Further prediction: it won’t be more than 10 years or so before two things happen: there are massive lawsuits against the Scouts due to sex abuse that occurs between scouts and “masters,” and the BSA will become a predominately left-wing sexular pagan advocacy organization a la the Girl Scouts. You are going to allow at least some men with powerful inclinations towards “twinks” unfettered access to them in remote, rural locations. Normal boys will flee in spades, within a few years virtually no normal boys will join up, and you’ll be left with a much smaller sodomite-advocacy group. Satan couldn’t be happier, and Baden-Powell must be spinning in his grave.
MFG also recommends this: interesting analysis that indicates that parishes that host Boy Scout troops but who refuse sodo-marriage could be held liable. The wheels, the wheels are coming off: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/BSALegalRamifications.pdf