Pope Calls For Action To “Save The Planet”; Silent On Saving The Faitheditor
In what I believe was probably a very rare exercise in sarcasm, blogger, Athanasius, emailed me the other day to say that he was greatly looking forward to the new encyclical, adding “Ireland has just officially apostatised from the Faith and the Pope’s writing about the environment. Things are truly bad!”
Quite. The Church is falling apart before our very eyes, with apostasy writ large just about everywhere, and Pope Francis – instead of concerning himself with the question of how to end the diabolically-inspired crisis within the Church, which has resulted in worldwide apostasy – is worrying himself to death about how to improve the weather. Crackers
When can we expect an encyclical condemning the errors of our times and exhorting obedience to the moral law, as revealed by God and entrusted to His Church to preach and promote? When?
Click here to read about the launch of the first ever papal “eco-encyclical” – Laudato Si – and to read the encyclical click here
Well, the Pope has laid his cards on the table. He’s a “believer”. Where does that leave Catholics like myself, who do NOT believe that the weather is caused or changed by human beings… People like me who remember Our Lord’s exhortation not to worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself? And where does it leave the papolatrists among us, who think the Pope’s every word is infallible? Could it be that the Holy Spirit is telling us that we ought to believe in man-made climate change?
Tell us if the new encyclical has evangelised YOU into believing the doctrine of “man-made climate change” or, if – like me – you agree with those commentators who suggest that the Pope should “leave science to the scientists” and further, that he should get down to ending the crisis in the Church, speaking out against the widespread loss of divine and Catholic Faith around us, apologise for his dereliction of duty in saying “who am I to judge?” (grave sin) and admit that the Church has gone off the rails in the past 50 years thanks to that Council. After all, he has to start somewhere if he wants to “save the Faith”. And he must want to “save the Faith”… surely?
If you are unable to make a comment on the actual encyclical, at least as it is presented in the blog introduction, please, at least, do NOT post any personal remarks. And certainly do NOT post any definitive judgements. You don’t know whether a soul is “evil” any more than any of us know whether YOU are “evil”. That judgment is one that we are prohibited from making. So far in your blogging history here, I can think of NO meaningful contributions from you at all. Not good enough. Do not use us to hurl insults at anyone – even this terrible [fact] pontiff. Either contribute in a helpful way or go somewhere else. Please and thank you.
Other than a basic call to responsible stewardship of the earth – which has always been Catholic teaching – of its nature anything on climate change cannot be binding on Catholics, based as it is on dubious science. And the Pope’s eco-stance isn’t even impressing the secular and anti-church commentators – one example here:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11682830/If-we-need-the-Pope-to-teach-us-about-science-then-God-help-us-all.html
If the planet is going to be destroyed, it will be because of sin, as Our Lady said at Akita, and not because of alleged climate change.
I remember some time ago seeing the homosexual dissident journalist Mark Dowd on television. He was basically saying that the Church needs to shift its teaching focus away from sexual issues, and onto the environment. It looks like, for the time being, Dowd has his wish. But Our Lady said to Blessed Jacinta Marto, the Fatima seer, that more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason – and certainly not because their ‘carbon footprint’ might be a bit on the high side.
I fear this document will only serve to further discredit the Church in the long run.
Thanks for posting that link to the Telegraph. As you say, this encyclical isn’t fooling even the seculars – the author of that biting piece has made good use of the opportunity to attack the Church on several fronts – even Galileo is cited, surprise, surprise: and then there’s this…
“But it’s not just matters of science on which Popes have time and again been wrong. It’s on matters of basic morality too.
When it comes to all of the great moral debates of our time, the Catholic Church has been on the wrong side on every one.“
So, well done, Papa Francis. You’ve given the anti-Catholic media yet one more stick with which to beat Holy Mother Church – and for many years to come because, as WF, rightly notes, “this document will only serve to further discredit the Church in the long run.“
With bells and whistles on… and trailing a string of rainbow coloured ribbons…
Totally crackers! the Pope is more concerned with the destruction of “mother earth” than he is with that of Holy “Mother Church”. In conversation with some friends some time ago the subject of climate change came up and someone said that climate change has been there from the very beginning. He supported this claim by stating that in the Old Testament there are frequent references to snow, ice, frost, That type of weather is, I am told, rare in the continent of Africa today (The Holy land is in that continent, right? No?)
“…the Pope is more concerned with the destruction of “mother earth” than he is with that of Holy “Mother Church”.
On the button. And, if you’re into mixed metaphors, you’ve hit that nail on the head. 😯
And no use asking me where the Holy Land is – I’m still trying to work out where they put Yugoslavia!
…no use asking me where the Holy Land is – I’m still trying to work out where they put Yugoslavia!” LOL 😀
Comment removed – off topic.
We have a General Discussion thread for any topics not currently under discussion. Please do not post anything here that is off topic. Here we are discussing the new “green” encyclical.
“Your sons ask for the bread of Faith and no one gives it to them. Ungrateful Rome, effeminate Rome, arrogant Rome. Forgetting that the Sovereign Pontiffs and your true glory are on Golgotha. Woe to you; my law is an idle word for you.” ~St. John Bosco
We are given nothing to feed our souls. Man is the new god. His comfort is of the utmost importance. God is ignored. Souls go to hell. And the Church, our beloved Church, continues to undergo Her Passion, inflicted by Her own members, even the Vicar of Christ, who has abandoned the duty that he took on, that of teaching and protected the Holy Catholic Faith inviolate. No wonder they got rid of that Papal Oath. To break an or to have no intention of ever keeping it is a serious crime, especially if you have the souls of the whole world in your care.
May God have mercy on Pope Francis. Truly, the Novus Ordo Church no longer has any supernatural and divine Faith, when it’s come to a point where an Encyclical is written that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
This has happened:
“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” ~Pope Pius XII
You’ve really said it all there. Thank you for that thoughtful (if very sad) comment, so true.
This pontiff has brought the Church very low, grasping at “green” straws, so to speak, in an apparent effort to make the Church of Christ “relevant” to modern man (and woman of course… What’s Latin for “feminism is crackers”?)
I doubt if he’s fooling anybody except the CAFOD/SCIAF brigade, but we soldier on, thanking God for the grace of our Confirmation 😀
There wasn’t any such thing as feminism in ancient Rome 😜😜😜😜
You’ve let me down. And here was me about to raise your pay to recognise your newfound role as my personal translator. I’m devastated.
Shame. But I cannot tell a lie. They didn’t have any crackers either😱😱😱
Well, they’ve sure made up for it now 😀 !
If you scroll to 45.56 mins on the following video of the Daily Politics (BBCTV today) there is a very interesting piece with James Delingpole, the climate change sceptic Versus the man from CAFOD talking about the new encyclical.
I find it very embarrassing that the Pope is discrediting the Church further, as if the clerical and child abuse scandals weren’t enough.
Good for James Delingpole – it’s great to see CAFOD squirming!
Oh, CAFOD are having a field day with this new encyclical. It still shocks me the amount of good Catholics who give to CAFOD, despite all the worrying facts about this organisation being made widely available years ago. Even in the last couple of weeks, I was appalled to learn that a traditional Mass promoter in my diocese also does voluntary work for them, and CAFOD was also listed among the organisations that ‘in memoriam’ donations could be made to, at a traditional Mass funeral I attended recently.
What concerns me greatly is that such an Encyclical forms part and parcel of the post-conciliar Church’s marriage to this world rather than to the next.
We are to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling, because our lives are a spiritual battle involving thrones and dominions, powers of the air — it’s God’s Grace vs. the powers of hell. And at the end of the battle, it is Death, Judgement, Heaven or hell forever.
Such an Encyclical replaces all these with working out our local ecosystem with fear and trembling, because our lives are a temporal battle with Amazonian cattle ranchers, nuclear power station operators and with little Jimmy down the road who chucks his empty crisp packets behind a hedge. And at the end of the battle, it’s sustainable living, a balanced water supply in Uttar Pradesh and either thrushes and sparrows flitting about green meadows or crows sitting atop a rubbish heap forever.
Good stewardship of the earth is of course a good Christian concept. But ringing the alarm bells on this when they are silent on the eternal loss of so many souls is just the latest in fifty years of complete bollocks.
I could never understand how I was managing to damage the ozone layer when spraying a weightless substance under my oxters and yet it needs a thrust of around 3 and a half million pounds to get a rocket to go a few miles further through the ozone layer into space.
Of course we never hear of the ozone layer now, that was just a starter for the myth.
The Pope complaining about the environment is like someone lamenting the wInd blowing away his TV aerial without bothering to mention about his house being still attached to it.
“The Pope complaining about the environment is like someone lamenting the wInd blowing away his TV aerial without bothering to mention about his house being still attached to it.”
I am sorry, but people are living with the results of the “myth” that you are talking about.
You shouldn’t believe everything you read, especially sensationalist stuff like the story you linked. Try investigating matters for yourself instead of taking the word of a news company that makes money from big headlines. You know the old line about not letting the truth get in the way of a good story!!
Dear Athanasius, it might be appropriate for you to investigate the company who is host this blog! You might find some things there that disagree with your outlook on the world. https://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/hate-group-proudly-powered-by-wordpress
And, just because you get a sensationalist headline, does not make it any less true! As St. Francis of Assisi might say: “No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves.”
In part 15 of Laudato Si, it says “It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching . . . ” Really? Can that be correct? Surely no Pope can expect people to accept disputed scientific theories as part of Church teaching?
Exactly – it cannot possibly be part of the body of Catholic social teaching.
I read this article and was just incredulous at the way the pope thinks nothing of telling off politicians for their “weak responses” on this issue but has said nothing about the way politicians are introducing gay marriage all over the world, or at least the western world.
I really do wonder at this pope’s way of thinking.
This Pope wants above all to be popular. I would go even further. If one were to subtract his popularity, what would be left? Nothing.
Hence, popularity at all costs. Preaching on the enviroment is highly lucrative in terms of personality. Preaching on the natural moral law and the responsibility of politicians is likely to make one a pariah.
I think we would have been better served by a new encyclical on the nature of marriage or the evil of assisted suicide for example. Our Pope and our cardinal and bishops should be shouting from the rooftops in defence of Traditional Catholic teaching. Instead silence. Perhaps they are afraid of standing up for their principles or maybe they no longer believe in them! Much more important than climate change.
I completely agree about marriage and remembering the quote from the cardinal on the Rorate Caeli link on the other thread, about Sr Lucia telling him that Satan’s final battle with Our Lord would be fought over marriage and the family. It is beyond belief that the Pope is keeping silent on that and writing about questionable climate change theories.
I think this information puts it all in perspective. No wonder the Pope isn’t defending marriage and the family
I hope to God that the Pope is wrong and that man-made global warming isn’t real. Why? Well consider the crisis in the Church, rampant secularism and apostasy in the wider society, the culture of death and worldwide social and economic injustices. On top of those, a global ecological catastrophe is one more problem too many. So why do environmentalists act like they WANT climate change to be real? It’s like it gives them something to be angry about.
No, not that it gives them something to be angry about (they’re always grinning all over the place) but it gives them an excuse to make money out of us.
Which is why I will never EVER pay 5p for a plastic bag with any supermarket advertising thereon. See the plan? It’s about making money and population control in its every aspect. And the useful idiots fall for it every time… It’ll be worse now that the Pope has hitched his star to the wagon marked “Greens”
Tell you what, though, I’m getting sick and tired having to explain that we need to distinguish what is infallible and binding papal teaching and what is not. In fact, I doubt if there’s been a sentence that binds any Catholic since 1962. The Church has been run like a cross between a political party and a popularity contest.
Editor, you are wrong in this. I would contend that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is infallible, as are the dogmatic parts of Evangelium Vitae. Also, it is difficult to see how John Paul II’s teaching on priestly ordination as reseved to men only is not infallible.
With 125,000 babies murdered world-wide daily in abortion, not to mention abortifacients, it’s a shame Pope Francis is not concerned about saving them!
As the church descends even deeper into crisis (if this is possible) we have to remind ourselves what Pope St. Pius V (1504-1572) quoted
“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.”
We are not living any different from the secular culture.
Keep fighting the good fight.
God bless you all,
Well said – absolutely spot on. And, not that he needs my endorsement, but Pope St Pius V hit the nail on the head with his observation about lukewarm Catholics. If he were here today, I’d say “tell me about it, Holy Father. Tell me ABOUT it.“
You really could not make Pope Francis up. His priorities are somewhat muddled. Putting it kindly.
“Kindly“? You should be given medal for charity way beyond the call of (baptismal) duty 😀
A truly brilliant Encyclical, incisive, knowledgeable, challenging and faith filled.
Editor: this is one of our old friends, Mr T. Roll. Released this for a bit of light relief but that was before I read the hilarious posts below. Unfortunately, Martin et al (he has several usernames) doesn’t provide any rationale for his enthusiastic endorsement of the “truly brilliant encyclical” or say what is “incisive” or “knowledgeable” about it or what makes it “challenging” and “faith-filled”. What’s that they say these days? Oh, I know… LOL ! I say LOVL (laugh out VERY loud! ) 😀
God does not control the weather any more
It’s the Pagans, Club of Rome and Albert Gore,
Will our head honcho in a poncho see fit
To declare Global Warming Holy Writ;
Is he about to demonise CO2
By ending black smoke emissions from his flue,
Must we now pray to the pagan goddess Gaia
Ignore Christmas – feast with Saturnalia.
I once learned the Ten Commandments at the knee
Of a Mother who explained the Didache,
Prior to the miracle of electric light
She could not teach her brood reading in the night;
So if this Pontiff says Africans must stay
In fuel poverty – it’s their Auto – Da – fe,
All those fossil fuels are theirs and bountiful
Not to exploit them – is just more Papal Bull.
His Holiness should stick to promoting God
Instead of embracing scientific fraud,
How can the poor gain a title to this earth
When denied the means by energetic dearth;
Since Global Warming stopped in ninety seven
Voodoo climate scientists appeal to heaven,
Their unending swill of money in the trough
Should not the shorn sheep finally switch off.
Will Pope Francis instruct every catholic
To believe the new Creed of the hockey stick,
Reprinting our bibles in a shade of green
Ignoring the teachings of the Nazarene;
Deifying mother earth and the occult
For our sins of Emissions and the Indult
I’ll stick to my Faith in the God of Passion
Ignoring the UN-sustainable fashion.
We are told ignore the warming of the Sun
George Orwell foresee Agenda Twenty One,
The Master Plan – control the population
For Climate Realists – excommunication?
Papal dabbling in this science of ill repute
Will turn Mother Church into s prostitute,
So as we await the next Encyclical
Ignore junk – make it Ecclesiastical
This was penned in anticipation of the Popes Encyclical, and I am afraid I told you so.
Keep praying for the conversion of the Catholic Church and all who sail in her.
“His Holiness should stick to promoting God
Instead of embracing scientific fraud…”
Interesting, James Delingpole made the point (see video link to BBC programme posted above) that there’s more evidence for the existence of God than there is for man-made climate change!
ps love the poem but don’t give up your day job (whatever it is!)
Waterside is a poet.
BRILLIANT Waterside4. It should be more widely read. How about sending it to CO or The Remnant?
Forget prayer, fasting and almsgiving. It’s now all about planting, recycling and conservation. In our present age with the numbers attending Mass (or even church) falling faster than China’s coal reserves, it appears that THE place to go on a Sunday is the local garden centre:
You enter hoping to have your conscience assuaged and to make reparation for all those plastic bags you’ve carelessly discarded and those tanker-loads of water you’ve poured down your plughole. You listen attentively to the sales assistant’s patter and are utterly convinced that the greener you are the better. You clearly see the importance of thinking about the future and your, no, make that, the planet’s fragile existence. You approach the till with your chosen gifts and a smile on your face (because Homebase loves a cheerful giver). You hand over that bit of plastic or those bits of paper that you will definitely NEVER recycle. The transaction is completed and you go forth with joy in your heart and ready to spread the good news – that geraniums are buy one, get one free until Tuesday.
Oh, and then you go back gnome.
P.S. If Westminsterfly can quote from Abbé Trochu’s book on the Curé d’Ars then so can I (p.232):
One of the villagers of Ars told her daughter after the Saint’s death that there wasn’t a hailstorm in the area during his ministry. Similarly, another contemporary said that no storm-damage ever occurred during the Curé’s years of service. Now that’s the kind of climate change that REALLY appeals.
That’s a classic. I haven’t laughed as heartily for quite some time. Hilarious.
I do wish you (and other mystery men) would organise an avatar. I almost missed this one. Thought I’d commented on all the latest posts and then remembered laughing out loud at you.. (I mean at your patter !) but not commenting.
So, go on – find a potato or a patron saint of garden centres, and attach it to the email address that you use to sign in here. You know it makes sense!
What? They even have pictures of potatoes in the avatar gallery? Why was I not told this before? Like the encyclical, this changes everything……or,maybe not. I’ll (attempt to) get an avatar but if the only suitable spud pic on offer is of a King Edward, I may have to pass as I’m a bit of a republican.
Also “start” should read stay – it’s been a trying day for Three score and thirteen.
All corrections executed. And you don’t look a day over 29 😀
The document released today is a political manifesto. I wonder what happened to that encyclical he was supposed to be writing.
Oh, hang on – I’ve just realized – it turned into a UNcyclical.
Now, why didn’t I think of that – “UNcyclical”? Don’t answer that… 😀
There are some wonderful phrases and indeed warm phrases in the encyclical about sharing with the poor, the exploitation of the planet by the rich, etc. But the fact is that the prosperity of the West was built by Capitalists investing their money in exploiting the natural resources of coal and fossil fuels to begin our Industrial Revolution. Rerun Novarum by Pope Leo XIII saw nothing wrong with this, Labour depends on Capital and Capital depends on Labour. Of course there were abuses and there are today but the Church should not be perceived as anti-Capitalist. Let us talk about sharing with the poor. Africa is a country rich in fossil fuel resources but Europeans put no money there to develop its economies. Go to Fair-trade and buy jams and sweets and trinkets but do not expect to buy an African washing machine, an African car, or an African Television Set. We stopped them developing to that stage. Now they are told that for the planets sake they must not use fossil fuels, they must not develop economically. How is this helping the poor of Africa? Ice in the Antarctic has expanded to a point beyond when records began. There is no danger at the moment of the low lying islands in Oceana being flooded. The ice in the Antarctic fluctuates and like Antartica is not behaving in the way the computer models the scientist use expect them to behave. Behind the so called Science is the sceptre of World Government, economic control, population control, abortion and euthanasia of the whole planet. The Pope will be applauded for supporting the dubious science but soon his application of Catholic principles on these issues, which to be fair to him he does teach in the encyclical will lead the secular world to call him a hypocrite. The trouble with the Pope is that he thinks he can make the Catholic church popular.
“The trouble with the Pope is that he thinks he can make the Catholic Church popular.”
Somebody should point him in the direction of the Gospel warning that “as the world hated Me, so it will hate you…” [assuming you are following Christ as He commands and not as the “liberals“ command…
Worth a try…
He is trying to evangelise by showing the relevance of The Christian message to the lives of ordinary people, and how Jesus said “come to me all who labour and are overburdened, and I will give you rest”.
Popularity isn’t a concern, and if it was he would be pandering to The Enemy Within who try to outPope The Pope.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe this Pope with this encyclical is showing the ‘relevance of The Christian message’ in saying Africa ought not to develop fossil fuels for the sake of the planet? Cell phones and computers can be upgraded every year at an enormous cost to the environment but Africa must remain behind the times because to do otherwise would hurt mother earth?
It’s not an Encyclical nor an Uncyclical but a Recyclical.
I thought this short video report was interesting.
I would say it was definitely CONcyclical.
It is only “blabla”!!!
Does this mean that the bishops on their Ad Limina visits will be using the same type of transport as Francis Drake or St Brendan?
Climate change has already taken place in most of the Catholic Churches I attend there is no heating on most of them are freezing . We can all help here men -keep on your long johns at least until July -Women start wearing those long knitted woollen vests your Granny gave you . O and if you cover your head with a woolen veil that will make you more holy and also save the planet. Just as an afterthought whilst doing all this remember to pray for sunshine. Francis your job is to save souls leave the saving of the Planet to brilliant atheists like Stephen Hawkings a man proclaimed to have the greatest brain on the Planet . Who’s more interested in black holes millions of light years away than trying to find a cure for motor neurones disease. The games a bogey.
“Women start wearing those long knitted woollen vests your Granny gave you.”
You are encouraging the growth in herds of sheep whose flatulence will only add to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. The world temperature may rise by 0,0000001% over the next 10,000 years as a result.
Shame on you.
And the Pope could solve all these global threats tomorrow if only he would obey the request of Our Lady of Fatima! No point telling others to put aside personal agendas “destructive to humanity” while adhering yourself to the counter-Fatima “Conciliar Revolution” of the liberal sixties! In fact the latter is much more destructive since it destroys immortal souls for all eternity.
Our Lady placed in the hands of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops the resolution to the world’s troubles. All she asked was that the Holy Father together with all his bishops make a public and solemn consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, by which humble trust and fidelity she promised to grant the world a period of peace. But they have continued to say no to this request, making pseudo consecrations of the lip-service variety just like those representatives of the world’s multinational interests, bewailed by the Pope, who pay lip service to environmental initiatives but never act in a decisive way.
I noted immediately at the outset of the Pope’s Encyclical that he makes reference to the public observations and allocutions of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II, just as he did in his previous Encyclical. No mention whatever is made of the teaching of the Magisterium prior to 1959.
The reason for this is obviously that what Pope Francis is teaching in his environmental Encyclical is not consistent with the traditional teaching of the popes throughout the centuries. For example, Pope Francis, like the conciliar predecessors he mentions, speaks favourably about “religions,” as though there is more than one true religion in God’s sight. He also speaks of all humanity travelling together towards God, an observation that not only contradicts the evidence of global apostasy from God in our time but also smacks of the heresy of universal salvation. He also speaks of Our Lord Jesus Christ not coming down to us from above but from within, a declaration very reminiscent of the Modernist “vital iminence” condemned by St. Pius X.
Some good things are said in the Encyclcical. For example, the Pope clearly challenges the myth of evolution as an alternative to Creation. It’s just a pity he has fallen for the alternative myth of climate change, a multi-billion dollar industry that largely targets the ordinary person with all manner of “Green taxes”!
And here was I thinking that the Almighty sustains the world and has given charge to His angels to protect it from desctruction, at least until He Himself destroys it with fire on the last day.
What distrubed me most about this Encyclical, which is way too lengthy for what it intends to say, is that there is little or no instence by Christ’s Vicar on earth to a radical return of men to the moral laws of God and the order of nature as He created it, at least not in any really supernatural way. And there is no mention of the world’s increasing afflictions being initmately linked to the universal rejection of Christianity in our time, to the breaching of divine law on a universal scale; no mention of God’s justice, which does fall on individuals and nations when they very publicly and hatefully reject Him.
Instead, we get a litany of supposed destructive influences on the environment, as yet unproven, and a good many general suggestions to human action without specific details. Furthermore, it mentions many times that the earth is “our common home” a claim which again contradicts traditional Catholic teaching that this earth is a “valley of tears” to be sojourned on the way to our true home which is heaven.
Sad to say, Pope Francis’ Encyclical comes across as something of a rant against capitalism and its multinationals, not completely without justification but not likely to help him escape accusations of being a Communist at heart, especially since environmentalism is largely championed by Socialist activists.
One thing I can say for certain, this is not a papal document written with the salvation of souls in mind, at least not in the authoritative way we Catholics were used to before Vatican II polluted the atmosphere in the Church and choked the supernatural zeal out of a great majority of the clergy. What was that John XXIII said about Fatima’s Third Secret not being for our time??
Anyone who read the encyclical can see its value, and how it is consistent it is with the Mission of Christ, and his Church. From the outset we were told to cultivate and care for the earth.
I can certainly see its value, Martin. Paper is an excellent composting material and I’d happily recycle as many copies of the encyclical as I can get my hands on. Good for the environment, good for the planet and excellent for cultivating my garden. Job’s a good ‘un.
Hilarious! It reminds me of when I used to remove copies of the dissident National Board of Catholic Women’s ‘Omnibus’ free newspaper from whatever churches I visited, and ‘recycled’ them. Happy days . . .
They would do better to cultivate and care for immortal souls – see the recent decision of Catholic Ireland, for example, to apostatise from the Faith by voting for “gay marriage” while the Pope and the bishops said nothing!!
It’s all about priorities, Martin, and this Pope has got his completely wrong. He seems more interested in the salvation of the earth’s ecosystem than the salvation of souls. That is extremely worrying!
We are exhorted through Holy Scripture, and Tradition, to develop and care for all God has given us. Genesis is quite clear about the earth! St Francis likewise.
Holy Scripture, Tradition, and St Francis will also exhort us to respect the Successor of St Peter.
It is no surprise then you choose to ignore both exhortations which are from God.
Thanks for the sermon, Martin. As it happens I’ve done my very best throughout my life to love and care for animals, and to respect the environment in which I live. Some people think my love for animals is rather excessive, actually. You really shouldn’t be so judgemental, you know. We can see through the sham of “climate change”, and the very real danger that is represents to HUMAN life. Don’t be so hidebound; do some proper research and look into BOTH sides, and while you’re at it, give some thought to the scandal that Christ’s Vicar on Earth seems to be more concerned with plant life than with souls.
Do not confuse holy respect for the office of the Successor of St. Peter with sin of human respect for the person of the Pontiff. St. Paul greatly respected St. Peter but had no hesitation in challenging him in public when the good of souls required it.
You are absolutely right to state that we have a duty before God to care for Creation and all that is given us. But let us not lose sight of the fact that we have a much greater duty yet to save our souls for eternity, as well as of those with whom we come into contact. There is no more pressing a priority in life than this. In fact, one soul is more precious in the sight of God than all His Creation.
Now, Ireland has just voted in favour of “gay marriage.” Think of the number of Catholic souls in that country, priests included, who, by this apostasy, have placed their eternal salvation in the greatest possible danger. And think of the weak bishops of that country and the weak Pope in the Vatican who remained silent in face of the unfolding tragedy, just as they have remained silent in so many other cases of heresy and departure from the Traditional Catholic Faith, themselves promoting previously condemned errors such as religious liberty, ecumenism, Communion in the hand, etc., etc.
And you think this Encyclical of Pope Francis is the best thing since sliced bread? This is how shallow Catholics have become, absorbed with the things of this world and neglectful of the world to come.
Our Lord said (paraphrasing): “Do not worry about what you will eat or how you will clothe yourself, as do the pagans. Rather, seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you. Consider the lilies of the field which neither labour nor spin, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. I tell you that Soloman in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these. Now, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more you, O ye of little faith”.
Let that be a lesson to you from Our Lord’s own mouth where the priority of Catholics should lie. This over worry about the climate and the environment, while the world spiritually races to Hell in a handcart, is a complete inversion of the Church’s mission on this earth. This is typical of the Modernist Gospel of the post-Vatican II years. Little wonder, then, that Pope St. Pius X called Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies”.
As for Genesis. If you read the Scriptures a little more carefully you will find that the fall of our first parents brought sin onto the world and ruined paradise for themselves and their descendents. Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, sent into the world to suffer and labour by the sweat of their brow. Paradise in this world was lost to all with the Original Sin, but not the heavenly paradise, thanks to Our Divine Redeemer. Hence, while we certainly have an obligation to care for the planet and the poor, our obligation is first to those who live in sin and/or do not hold the true religion, which is the Catholic religion. When Christ the King reigns once more over the nations and in the hearts of men then all will fall back into place. In the absence of such a global conversion, Pope Francis is just whistling in the wind. Let His Holiness then preach Christ Crucified, as is his duty, not the world crucified.
And as to St. Francis, this great saint praised God in the beauty of His Creation. God was his ultimate focus, not Creation. There is no evidence to suggest that St. Francis was an “eco warrior,” so let us not tolerate any perversion of what St. Francis represented. He was first a man of God entirely devoted to souls and their salvation. Pope Francis would do well to reflect on this and start addressing the real issues that threaten this present world, those concerning souls. Yet on such issues he is either silent or gives scandal by making ambiguous statements to the press, not to mention overseeing a Synod on the Family which has cast doubt on the Church’s moral teaching and caused great division amongst the bishops.
The Church certainly has championed the cause of the poor and disadvantaged over the centuries, her Social doctrine testifying to this great work. But that is by far a secondary mission to her primary one, which is to preach Christ Crucified and to save souls. As Our Lord said: “The poor you will have always with you”.
Judas Iscariot portrayed himself as a great champion of the poor, objecting to St. Mary’s pouring of an expensive ointment on Our Lord’s feet, and look what became of him! The real poor are those who are living in the darkness of mortal sin or who do not possess the Catholic Faith, a divine gift much greater than Creation itself. As I said, priorities have gone wrong somewhere.
Great answer Athanasius, but I fear it is wasted on ‘Martin’ who Editor has already identified on this thread as a multi-identity troll.
Well at least he won’t have the excuse at his judgment that he didn’t know the truth of things. If Martin is a troll then he is clearly of bad will and is more to be pitied than scorned. I’ll never understand what satisfaction trolls get from so cowardly and nasty an occupation, truly pathetic.
Exactly, WF, but as soon as “Martin” starts his ignoring what has been said and repeating his nonsense, he’ll go into the bin without reading, the fate of his other identities. I’m keeping a close eye on his responses. Note, too that he is in moderation so if you use his name in your comments, they will go into moderation too. Suggest you shorten his name to to “M” or some other short form.
How many Catholics today know that in 1219, in the midst of disastrous Fifth Crusade, Francis crossed enemy lines to gain an audience with al-Kamil, the sultan of Egypt and a nephew of the great Muslim warrior Saladin, in his camp on the banks of the Nile. Francis, who opposed the warfare, hoped to bring about peace by converting the sultan to Christianity.
After such a comprehensive reply from Athanasius, there’s not much more to be said but I would just add the following –
After devastating floods in Florence in 1966 in which 101 people died, St. (Padre) Pio said, “This is the scourge of God; blessed are those who realise this.” He didn’t say, “Please stop paving over your front gardens as Mother Nature abhors concrete.” The reason why he made his stark statement is because he looked at this ‘weather event’ with the eyes of faith rather than from a myopic,worldly perspective. Fifty years later and you (may) agree with me that the world is desperately in need of a clear lead which fearlessly and compassionately proclaims that only when mankind once again acknowledges God as his Creator and Saviour and consequently sees everything through the prism of faith and behaves accordingly, will a ‘new creation’ be made manifest. And who is in a better position to promulgate that Eternal Truth than the Vicar of Christ? Unfortunately, this encyclical has not provided that requisite moral guidance. The only thought that will occur to most people hearing of this encyclical is “The Pope has gone green” – and then they’ll go back to booking the cheapest long-haul flight for their two week stay in the Maldives.
Your addition is very pertinent to the discussion and excellently put.
Saint Padre Pio, September 12th 1968 to (Blessed) Pope Paul Vl:
Letter to Pope Paul VI
On Humanae Vitae
On the 25th of July 1968 Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical letter On Human Life, confirming Church teaching that the marital act must be open to new life and that artificial contraception, therefore, was a grave offense against God. This quickly earned him the enmity of the world and many Catholics. In an act of filial love and submission Padre Pio sent the following letter to the Pope shortly before his own death on 23 September.
San Giovanni Rotondo
September 12, 1968
I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of him whom you are representing on this earth. …..The Capuchin Order has always been in the first line in love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue in its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.
I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical “Humanae Vitae”; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.
May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.”
He was no scientist, but he was a Traditional, Loyal, Catholic.
Editor: See my comment on this letter – very likely a fraud – below.
Your comment is completely out of context. There is no disrespect or disloyalty to the Pope here. In fact, the disloyal ones, the real dangers to the Catholic Faith, are people like you who have a misguided understanding of the Papacy, praising the Pope even when he is clearly unworthy of praise.
Now, just to awaken you to reality, here is the condemnation uttered by Pope Leo II against his predecessor Honorius:
“We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
That formal condemnation, upheld by several councils of the Church, gave rise to an oath that was taken by every new Pope from the eigth to the eleventh centuries. Promising to combat heretics and their heresies, the Papal oath reads in part: “…Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).
Paul VI preserved the purity of the Church’s infallible moral teaching with Humanae Vitae and was rightly praised by St. Pio for his fidelity in this regard. Francis’ Encyclical on the environment is not in the same class of document. In fact, it contains Modernist errors concerning freedom of conscience and religion. I would be quite happy to provide many Papal condemnations of such error if you wish, but I fear you are completely closed to truth, a tragic result of blind obedience.
I prefer my friends to correct me if I go wrong, not to tell me that I do well in my error. Such people are called sychophants.
I have taken nothing out of context. The Saint specifically mentions H.V., but praises (Blessed) Pope Paul Vl, and The Second Vatican Council, without reservations of any kind.
People cannot cite a Saint for an observation on the weather, and ignore his more important, significant, expression of loyalty to The Papacy and The Great Council.
Editor: It’s not so much that you’ve taken the letter out of context – you’ve just quoted a letter that is widely regarded as a fraud. Much worse! As soon as I saw the date, so close the Padre Pio’s death, not to mention the fact that the letter was so utterly contradictory to everything the Saint is known to have said, I was suspicious. It is posted on the Fisheaters blog (perhaps where you found it? Or maybe you saw it on the, to say the least, less-than-traditional EWTN site) with the following response from someone who’s done his homework…
QUOTE FROM MEMBER OF FISHEATERS BLOG…
“Like was done in the 1970s, when the San Giovanni in Rotondo Capuchins promoted Padre Pio as an advocate of the Liturgical Revolution and the Novus Ordo Missae, despite the clear evidence he was opposed to the use of the vernacular, this letter might be a fraud.
I think indeed it is written by the – now very Modernist – Capuchins of San Giovanni in Rotondo, or even the Roman superiors in the O.M.Cap., to make it look like Padre Pio supported the doctrinal revolution and the liturgical changes.
This is all untrue of course, though it has been repeated over and over.
Don’t forget, that because of the fact that one of Padre Pio’s spiritual children, Kara Tangari, became one of the closest female collaborators of Archbishop Lefebvre – and remained thus after 30th June 1988 – some launched a vile calumny against Abp. Lefebvre, saying, that Padre Pio allegedly condemned Lefebvre back in 1967, when Lefebvre went to Padre Pio to receive his blessing. Padre Pio allegedly said the Abp. was a “schismatic” and would “split the Church”. All nonsense of course and refuted by those present at the 2-minute-lasting meeting of P.P. with Abp. L., at which P. P. , instead of blessing the Abp as Lefebvre had asked, said: “No, no, you should bless me, Archbishop!”
As to this letter, I think it is falsely translated into the English language. I believe it to have been written to Paul VI in order to support him for Humanae Vitae, but, as it was written 2 weeks before his death, I think it was written by a co-friar or collaborator of Padre Pio, instead of by himself.
The extremely laudible words the author of the letter above apparently used in order to describe the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), are directly in contradiction to the observations and experiences Antonio Cardinal Bacci made, when he visited Padre Pio in 1964/1965. Bacci is his ‘Mémoirs’ recalls, that Padre Pio said: “Basta col COncilio!” “Enough of that council.”
That Padre Pio refused to use the vernacular since 1965 and demanded permission to use the Latin for the Tridentine Mass (which was only replaced by the New Mass in 1969, a year after Padre Pio died), clearly illustrates, that the “illuminations” of the changes Padre Pio did not support, like this letter is supposed to prove.
Padre Pio was weak at the time this letter was written, so I think it was written by an assistant. [Editor: and, I have no doubt that if he did write or authorise it, which I seriously doubt, Padre Pio did so only to support the pontiff’s base rejection of contraception, after the massive publicity at the time, leading most to believe that the Pope would change the Birth Control teaching, so if Padre Pio wrote or authorised a letter of support it would be merely to praise Paul VI for upholding Catholic teaching about the marriage act always being open to new life. That would be it. He’d hardly have had time to study it in depth, and note some of the finer points of debate, such as the new emphasis on “responsible parenthood” – I cannot imagine a priest, stigmatist, who allegedly refused to hear the confessions of women immodestly dressed, approving that new concept, given its worldly context i.e. where it was/is used to encourage “family planning”, inconsistent with every marital act being open to new life.]
That it is used by EWTN and other anti-traditional sources (even the now virtually sedevacantist dailycatholic.org, in 1999 was an adorer of John Paul II “the Great”) , says all to me.
It was a letter probably meant to support Paul VI for Humanae Vitae, in a time when every other teaching was attacked, yet in the Italy of that time Humanae Vitae still seemed a “constant” thing producing the traditional position of the Popes since the 19th century on anticonception. Padre Pio possibly ordered an assistant to write this letter, and then signed it.
This does not prove Padre Pio HIMSELF “praised” Vatican II. Not at all.
They try to spread these lies over and over again: as recently as 2002 the San Giovanni Capuchins, who have become fairly “progressive”, after the saint’s death, told the press, Padre Pio “contrary to the view of Lefebvrists” supposedly supported the Novus Ordo Missae. This of course is nothing more than a lie, as Padre Pio died ONE YEAR BEFORE (September, 1968) the Novus Ordo Missae was even promulgated (December, 1969)! That shows how they want to abuse Padre Pio, whom they even forced in 1968 to celebrate the Mass (the Tridentine Mass of course, as Padre Pio did not want changes) on a new “people’s altar” below the altarsteps. This occurred once, was taped, photographed, and shown later on as “evidence” that “Pio praised the Novus Ordo”. A fraud of course, as Padre Pio afterwards resumed to use the truly Catholic high altar again.” SourceFisheaters
Interesting, but the claim that the letter is a fraud is not supported by any external authoritative source with credibility.
Often you cite Christian Order as a source for things, but that publication is not a Church source either.
The encyclical is directly from The Pope.
Editor: what you have written above is a classic non-sequitur. Two totally unconnected ideas. Yes, the encyclical (Humanae Vitae, I presume you mean) is directly from the Pope. That there is no “external … source…” for the claim that the letter allegedly from Padre Pio to Paul VI is a fraud, is an entirely separate issue and BY ITS VERY NATURE cannot be “authoritative” in the empirical sense. Usually, you find that those who fake letters etc. in this sort of context (or withhold part of the Third Secret – another example of fraud in the Church) are people with the power to keep their fraud secret. Get it now? I mean, if I wanted to fake a comment from you, and believe me I don’t, I could do so. You’ve no avatar, I’ve got the power to doctor your comments, and nobody would ever learn my secret, cos I’m like that. So, a post from you, under any of your identities, saying you’ve seen the light, sincerely sorry for having doubted and what time’s the next Mass in the SSPX chapel in Glasgow, would do the rounds and be received with delight on the best of the “traditional” blogs. How could anybody prove it to be a fake? They couldn’t. All they could do is say that, judging by your previous comments and all that we know about you and what your closest friends who do know your real identity say, it is very unlikely that you’ve changed your beliefs, that, therefore, the “conversion” post is very probably a fraud. Do you get it now? Let’s hope so, because this matter is now closed. We’re not going round in circles, so unless you have absolute cast iron proof that the letter is NOT a fraud, we’ll leave it there, since both sides have had an airing. OK? In other words, don’t waste your time posting further on this, unless, as I say you have cast iron proof that the letter is authentic, because it won’t get through, Honey-Bunch 😀
I meant the most recent encyclical, but if you uphold H..V. as authoritative teaching you should give proper assent to others since then.
Westminster Fly answers this below. I’ve actually heard some of the NON-Catholic commentators acknowledge that the Pope has no authority to bind Catholics to believe any scientific theory!
Padre Pio at no time praised the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, he is recorded as telling some Vatican officials at the time to urge the Pope to stop the Council.
And as for one of the central bitter fruits of that Council, the New Mass, Padre pio requested, and was granted, leave by the Pope not to celebrate it.
You don’t have to be a scientist, or even a ‘Traditional, Loyal, Catholic’ to know that the Pope cannot issue a statement which is binding on Catholics, asking us to accept scientific theories which are still hotly disputed within the scientific community itself.
John Vennari has some insightful comment about this, as usual:- http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/4beaf67e54b1fca5204250ed23ad4145-407.html
That’s a very good link – the contrast between Pius XII and Francis I is very telling. I copied this bit from Pope Pius XII’s letter because it shows a completely different mentality from the “save the planet” narrative:
“…every possible care should be taken to preserve for the nation the essential elements of what may be termed genuine rural civilization. These are: love of work, simplicity and uprightness of life; respect for authority, especially of parents; love of country and fidelity to traditions that have proved fruitful for good down the centuries; readiness to give mutual help, not only on the part of members of the same family, but also on the part of neighboring families and homes; finally, the factor without which all the others would lack consistency, would lose all their value and would give way to an unbridled desire for gain, namely, a truly religious attitude of mind. Fear of God, trust in God, a lively faith that finds its daily expression in the common prayer of the family, may these rule and guide the life of those who labor in the fields: may the Church remain the heart of the village, the holy place where Sunday after Sunday, in accordance with the sacred traditions of their forefathers, the inhabitants come together to raise their minds above material things in the praise and service of God, so that they may obtain the strength to think and live as members of Christ all the days of the ensuing week.
The fact that the working of a farm has an eminently family character makes it of outstanding importance for the social and economic prosperity of the whole people and confers on the tiller of the soil a special claim to a decent living from his labors. Doubtless, if one were to aim exclusively at the maximum gain for the, national economy in the shortest possible time or at supplying the nation’s requirements in the earth’s products with the minimum of expense, one might thus be tempted to sacrifice family-farming in a greater or lesser degree. The last century and our own times afford numerous instances of this tendency, instances that are certainly not reassuring.”
I wish Pope Francis would sit down and read what his predecessors wrote before barging in with a new encyclical. He might get it the right way round if he did that, making God, not humans, at the centre of his message.
I am all for looking out for Creation. I love the natural world, really. But isn’t all this environmentalism we’re force-fed going to put sensible people off caring for the environment? Isn’t all this eco crap rather counter-productive then?
Muffin Man Strikes Back,
I know what you mean. It’s put me off and I really can’t take it seriously. I have always been careful not to drop litter, that sort of thing, but the extremes they are going to these days is counter-productive, I agree.
We should take it seriously in as much as it’s all about profit, racketeering and population control, so therefore is a threat to civilisation.
Although I was disappointed with the Encyclical supporting Global Warming I did say he did not support the secularist agenda and has made good teaching points for which he should be credited 1) Creation has a Creator, and is more than just “nature-plus-evolution”:
(2) Human ecology means recognizing and valuing the difference between masculinity and femininity:
(3) Jesus sanctifies human work:
(4) Look up from your phones and encounter each other:
(5) Save the baby humans:
(6) Helping the poor requires more than just handouts:
(7) Overpopulation is not the problem:
(8) True ecology requires true anthropology and respect for human dignity:
(9) Real change requires a change in culture, not just politics:
(10) The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions, and we need an honest and open debate:
(11) Stop with the cynicism, secularism and immorality:
I think it shows how far the modern popes have fallen when it is praiseworthy for the pope to state that Creation has a Creator!
The real test for the Pope is whether he will declare that the Creator has instituted only one Church for the salvation of souls. Muslims, Jews, Protestants, etc., will not be offended by a declaration that Creation has a Creator, but they will certainly not like the latter dogma being reiterated. The really pressing question is: Does Pope Francis himself believe this dogma? If so, why doesn’t he speak of it like the Popes did before Vatican II?
Yes John, but that is PRECISELY the danger with Modernism, which always uses this tactic. If Modernism peddled something 100% false, far less people would fall for it. So it mixes in good and bad, at whatever percentage of each, thus making it far more likely that some people will accept the bad along with the good. Read Pascendi Dominici Gregis:- “Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy” http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
I agree with your assessment of John Kearney’s comments. Pope Francis does indeed make many good and praiseworthy statements in his Encyclical, perfectly in line with Traditional teaching. The problem is that these wholesome statements are interspersed with highly dubious propositions, one at least of which is condemned by the Traditional Magisterium of the Church.
We wymmin at the St. Martina Luther Feminist Institute of Advanced Ecumenical Heresy welcome the publication of this Encyclical, even though it’s written by a man who ipso facto encapsulates the patriarchal structures that on the one hand suppress and oppress us wymmin, and on the other hand do not.
Wymmin of both genders and of none must welcome this overdue statement by Ms. Pope Francesca of the obvious. We at the Institute have been saying it for years. Mother Gaia is not pleased with Mankind’s destruction of her world – and note well that it is Mankind who has done all the damage, not Wymminkind whose role as Bearer means we are at one with Gaia – she who brings forth twig and berry, grass and wine, from her fruitful loins!
We would like to invite Ms. Pope Francesca to our next seance, to be held at midnight in the churchyard of St. _____ in the village of _______ in Somerset at the next full moon. We hope he will remember to bring his “Satan” (pat pending) anti-ectoplasmic wet-suit as the spirits will certainly want to congratulate him personally!
Waterside4, if you’ve already done this, and I’ve missed it, I apologise, but I think it would be good to see that link you posted about the Pope’s green pals on the Pope + Putin thread. Please. I am becoming convinced more and more that Francis is a puppet pope, not very intelligent and prepared to dance to the tune of anybody he has been told is an expert. He started out with his eight ‘cardinal advisers’ – which of his predecessors felt in need of such a team? He has consistently shown himself to be influenced by ideologies of the zeitgeist. His ‘preferential option for the poor’, as he articulates it, shows a lack of analytical understanding that bloggers here have several times picked up on. If there is truth in the tale that there were some shenanigans surrounding his election, is it not possible that he was chosen, because he was seen as ‘puppet material’ by demonic forces we may presume have infiltrated the upper echelons of the hierarchy?
As I was already thinking along these lines, Waterside4’s link, which lists the most peculiar green affiliations of this Pope, did nothing to change my mind. It’s very scary stuff.
“Obama calls for world leaders to heed Pope Francis’s message”
Never thought I would read that, ever. It can’t be a good sign surely?
Certainly isn’t. As I said, this is VERY scary stuff.
Muffin Man Strikes Back,
It will be interesting to see if President Obama takes action now to undo abortion and “Gay Marriage” in the U.S. That was a principle part of Pope Franics’ message, fundamental to all other aspects of healing the wounds inflicted by man on Creation and nature.
Allow me to end your sentence for you… “real pain in the neck.”
Kidding Christina, just kidding!
Kidding or not – a big LOL😂
Waterside – where did you go?
Christina at 2202 19TH,
Apologies for my tardiness,I have replied but you know that big hole that has opened up in the ‘net’ ?
Well my comment this morning fell through, either that or our Editorix (the Duchess) has consigned it to Sheol.
Yes dear Christina her little witticism at your expense!!! Tsch tsch.
About the link you requested it is as follows:
It would be good if some of our more erudite/clever posters on here could find time to read and digest.
I may be trying to teach you to suck eggs Christina, (wherever did that saying come from), but are you aware that many of the bestest anti alarmist man made global warming blogs are run/owned by active or semi retired Catholics like yours truly
Number uno is WattsUpWithThat which is Anthony Watts baby.
Then we have Pierre Gosseling with his http://www.notrickszone.com
Like myself he has just about had enough of Marxist Catholic Theology and is no longer an attendee.
Next must be the great Marc Morano with his http://www.climatedepot.com. Mark is a real star of TV and the biased MSM, and a very knowledgeable Catholic.
In the UK we have the great Christopher (Lord) Monckton, who is the scourge of the Met, BBC, and all and sundry NGOs and QUANGOS on the Taxpayer teat who falsify historical temperatures to fit their agenda. He can be found at http://sppiblog.org/
Also in Scotland we have the wonderful Andrew Montford, he can be found at the delightfully titled
Whilst usually fairly agnostic and a bit anti Catholic, they (we) do have a fare share of Jumping-in active Catholics prepared to defend our errant leaders as best we can. eg Michael Jackson,Joe Ronan aka Cumbrianlad.
BTW there is a wonderful expose of the whole AGW scam on an Australian site called http://quadrant.org.au
It is by (Lord) Matt Ridley ‘The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science’
It should be printed out and given to every Primary School pupil (and more importantly their Teachers). Then a copy should be given to every Bishop who could issue it as a Pastoral
Letter – do they still do them- to every Marxist Priest in Scotland.
To finish I would like to mention I am still in the throes of trying to write an expose on so-called charities, who have been infiltrated by Marxist agitprop.
I realise our gracious Hostess is in thrall to CAFOD among others. Consequently I expect her to administer the dreaded ‘snip’ when my article is gestated, and it will need to be promulgated elsewhere.
Keep the Faith.
“I realise our gracious Hostess is in thrall to CAFOD among others. Consequently I expect her to administer the dreaded ‘snip’ when my article is gestated, and it will need to be promulgated elsewhere.”
Are you kidding? ‘Cos you sure can’t be serious. I’m about as “in thrall to CAFOD” as Pope Francis is “in thrall” to the SSPX. What on earth makes you think that I would dream of supporting CAFOD? It’s not so long since our newsletter carried (yet another) report on that anything-but-Catholic AID(s) Agency…
Indeed, during my stint as Head of Religious Education in a “Catholic” college in England, it was my opposition to CAFOD which led to my tragic demise. When I suggested that we stop supporting CAFOD (which we did support, with bells on) following their promotion of dissent at a conference in London, the end was very definitely nigh for moi. The new (as he then was) Bishop, was the “big high heid yin” at CAFOD at the time, which I didn’t know. Long story cut short, he went bananas. More than one kindly soul has suggested that I write it all up in book form but it would never sell on the grounds that it is beyond fiction. Very true, because, once my objections became known, well, you wouldn’t believe what followed – because it’s unbelievable. Anyway, the editor of Christian Order refers to that conference here – below the relevant extract:
“Co-sponsored and organised by CAFOD, under the auspices of the Bishops’ Conference, it took place at the Barbican in London on 25 June 1994 under the title “One World, One Family,” to mark The Year of the Family. Nearly every speaker invited was a known dissident from Catholic moral teaching, including the infamous Dr Jack Dominian, who took part in the ‘Question Time’ on Marriage and the Family. Dr Dominian’s outspoken dissent from Church teaching on a range of moral issues, including sex before marriage, homosexuality, contraception, masturbation and sterilisation is well documented.”
I’m not sure what your parting shot means, but if you are suggesting that you could write up something of an expose on CAFOD – well, we have a journalist down south who has submitted a few pieces on CAFOD and related matters, but if you’ve got the writing bug, go ahead and email it. If we can use it, we will. “In thrall to CAFOD”? Moi? Me? You GOTTA be kidding me!
Trust, me, Waterside, I’m in thrall to the producers of Diet Lemonade. I’m in thrall to whoever thought up elasticated waist bands for skirts. I’ve even been known to be in thrall to Scottish Slimmers – those were the days (before I gave up!) … But, CAFOD? Not a chance.
Not gone yet
Thanks to the kind readers who found my bit of doggerel Papal Bull amusing.
There is plenty more on a Global Warming theme where that came from.
Now Editor you must confess those sort of comments ASAP!
Keep the Faith.
Sorry Guys, I was only involved in organising the Amauteur Golf Championshp final this morning.
Sorry about that.
You are forgiven – this time. However, if organising Amateur Golf Championships starts to interfere with your blogging obligation, then, we, I repeat, we, will have to think again 😀 At least that narrows down YOUR choice of avatar – golf clubs ! Get on with it – all these “mystery men” are driving me crackers.
Meanwhile, back at the papal encyclical, someone’s actually asked the question, is it infallible? Here’s the rather long-winded reply. Any one of us could have answered in a word: no !
My first thought on reading this Encyclical is that it speaks volumes about Holy Father Francis’ priorities. After all, what is the point in saving the planet for atheism? This Encyclical does absolutely nothing to address the challenges faced by the Church in the contemporary world where she is up against the forces of an aggressive secularism born of atheism, and this against the background of hostile Mainstream Mass Media which perverts consciences, even within the Church. To this extent, it is, I am sorry to say, like Nero’s fiddling whilst Rome burns.
But this Encyclical also gives us a further insight into what is a constant and worrying aspect of Francis’ personality. I have always considered the Jesuit virtue to be prudence. I have known Jesuits who were very learned. Others who were less so. But all of them lived and taught the virtue of prudence. Francis, on the other hand, does not have a prudential bone in his body. Look at how he tackled the question of the Reform of the Roman Curia, placing it in the hands of a group of Cardinals who not only know very little about what they are trying to reform, but are, with perhaps one exception, utterly undistinguished for their knowledge either of Canon Law or Theology. And where has it got him? Nowhere.
Idem for his wish to allow the divorced and illicitly remarried to accede to Holy Communion. Here too Francis waded in, calling a synod for the purpose in the full expectation of it triumphally rubber stamping the inititative and to hell with Scripture, Tradition and the teachings of his (infinitely more prudent) predecessors. And where did it get him? Not only up to his armpits in human excrement as it slowly dawned upon him that the question is far more complex than he first believed and with terrifying ramifications for sacramental confession as well as for marriage, to say nothing of what his plans would do to the credibility of the Magisterium, but with the Successor of Peter being seen as the greatest threat to Church unity in over a hundred years.
I would contend that this Encyclical is most useful as a key to unlock the mind of the phenomenon which is Holy Father Francis. Francis is a character and a half. Not of great intelligence, but as fly as a kite. Professedly left-wing, as only Jesuit of his generation and geographical provenance could be, but lets himself be dazzled by the charms of bourgeois German cardinals hell bent on conserving a system of privilege which means that the Church in Germany receives rivers of cash in Church taxes, but to the detriment of the Church’ prophetical mission. For do not underestimate, dear readers, the role which money plays in this Tale of Two Synods. The Church in Germany is in a very deep crisis. Every year thousands upon thousands of Catholics declare before the State that they are no longer such in order to reduce their tax burdens. This means less money going to a Church that is a bloated and expensive bureaucracy. Did you know, dear readers, that a pastoral assistant in Germany takes home about three thousand Euros per month, a parish priest five thousand and a bishop ten? Did you know that the Archdiocese of Cologne has more employees than the Vatican? The German hierarchy is stupidly and anachronistically hell bent on conserving the status quo, hence the rush to accommodate Germany’s large number of divorced and remarried Catholics and to hell with everything else, even with Our Lord’s explicit command as to the indissolubility of the marriage bond. (‘What is a pastoral assistant?’, I hear you ask. Pastoral assistants are the lay people who actually run the Church in Germany. With a severe lack of vocations, these people do everything except saying the words of consecration at Mass. They are a very powerful corporation which bishops rarely have the will to challenge.) if Francis really wanted to do the Church in Germany a favour and remain faithful to his left-wing principles, he would tell it to rip up its concordat with the German state. But I digress.
We really have to ask ourselves how a Pope can come to embrace something as controversial as anthropogenic global warming as if it were a done deal. Hasn’t he ever heard of Galileo Galilei? Does he know nothing of Pius XII’s prudential avoidance of canonizing Darwinian evolution? The short answer is that he doesn’t. Francis is like a little boy on Chritmas Day who finds himself with more toys than he knows what to do with, rushing from one to the other but never really playing with any of them. And this because he has rather a childlike sense of his own importance and worth which erects himself as the measure of everything. Francis, I fear, had come to believe the Mainsteam Mass Media’s exhaltation of Francis.
But not to worry. The Magisterium extends to faith and morals and to secondary matters connected with them. But when the Pope ventures into physics or economics, his opinions–for that is what they are–are as good as yours and mine.
Thank you for that very interesting comment.
We did run a thread on the German Church and the link between that, money and the Synod. It drew only 26 comments, surprisingly. Click here to read it…
My beloved and much putt(!) upon wife of 47 years is constantly telling me off for winding people up.
I now see what she means – in spades.
My comment about your shall we say (involvement) in CAFOD was meant as a wind up, I must remember to switch on the sarc tag next time.
I did read the posting you refer to, it was shocking.
Keep the faith
Ahhhhhgh! I’ve just obliterated a long post on this ****** tablet. I’m going away to get my lunch.😬!
Always wise to keep copying a comment so that if it disappears, you can re-post. If it’s going to be lengthy, it’s even a good idea to type it up in Word and save it – then post after lunch 😀
Can’t do any of that ‘cos I’ve only got a little tablet away with me. It’s so small that when I press the space bar I’m in danger of hitting ‘home’ instead and closing CT up. That’s what happened.
O dear. Well, stay at home with your computer – no excuses 😀
How’s this for a “fix”? Not so much that the Pope looked at the scientific evidence and weighed in… More like the “evidence” was fixed to suit the climate change believers’ agenda.
Gimme a brolly… !
You are a one! One who has just dropped ten points down the pay scale. NOW will your wife be mad 😯
Say “sorry” nicely, and all will be forgiven…(no, not “sorry nicely” – don’t be smart!)
Do those asterixes represent a colourful metaphor? Shame on you! Scrub your finger tips with wire brush and detol!
What’s wrong with ‘I’ve just obliterated a long post on my lovely tablet’? Bad Athanasius’s. Go and confess your wicked thoughts😈
There is so much truth and wisdom in your comments above. I would, however, argue that Pope Francis knows precisely what he’s doing. His Holiness is a very well educated Jesuit and liberal, a deadly combination for the Church. Unlike the child running from one toy to the next without interest in any, Francis has set about the task of tinkering with the Church’s most precious treasures. Every word he speaks and change he makes is calculated to bring about the full implimentation of the Conciliar revolution, whose end is a worldly religion.
I don’t say he acts thus out of malice, no. He is utterly convinced in his own mind, as only a tragic victim of Modernism can be, that the Church before the Council had somehow gone wrong and was in need of renewal. It is a mystery of iniquity, that “diabolical disorientation” spoken of by Our Lady of Fatima.
Here are some quotes from the pre-Vatican II Popes which admirably demonstrate how diabolically disorientated the Conciliar hierarchy has become.
Mirari Vos – Gregory XVI – August 15, 1832
To the bishops: “…Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty” and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “Nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning…”
“…To use the words of the Fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church “was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain “restoration and regeneration” for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune…”
“…Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the Apostle that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself who said “He that is not with me, is against me” (Luke 11:23), and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and entire.”
“…This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to the absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say…”
Quanta Cura – Pius IX – December 8, 1864
“…they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society”…But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition…”
Syllabus of Errors – Pius IX – 1864
Condemned “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.
Condemned “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation.” Encyclical Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.
Condemned “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, August 10, 1863.
Condemned “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” Encyclical Noscitis, December 8, 1849.
Condemned “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” Allocution Nemo Vestrum, July 26, 1855.
Why can’t they see this??
Pope John XXIII’s stated aim in summoning Vatican II was to make the message of faith more relevant to people in the twentieth century, calling for an Aggiornamento, a freshening of thinking and practices that would better enable the Church to better carry out her mission and serve the whole of mankind. The pope also hoped the Council would pave the way for Christian unity. But, and this is very important, he did not have a fully formulated plan and, consequently, the Council became something of a runaway train which it was left to Paul VI to, as it were, keep on the tracks.
I am of the opinion that the desire to make the faith more relevant had some very serious side effects. Firstly, it led to a widespread feeling that the faith was the Church’s to re-write at will. Let it not be forgotten that Vatican II was the first Council to take place in an age of mass media. Peoples’ expectations were guided by the media which, then as now, was profoundly liberal in outlook. This was apparent just three years after the closure of Vatican II when Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae. The reaction to the Encyclical by Catholic opinion makers showed the extent to which a Protestant mentality had entered into the minds of Catholics who expected the Pope to just go with the flow. This virus is still active in the Church, but it has now infected, consciously or otherwise, the vast majority of Catholics. I would humbly contend that Pope Francis is infected by this virus.
Secondly–and if this appears off topic, it is only apparently so–the vexata quaestio of the liturgy. It has taken me years to come round to this view, but I would contend that the reforms undertaken by Paul VI, particularly in relation to the reform of the rite of Mass, had the effect of exhalting the Word (understood as Sacred Scripture) to the detriment of the sacramental dimension which lies at the heart of Catholic Christianity. This had an enormous knock-on effect: on the Magisterium, which came to be seen as an opinion rather than the voice of Christ in His Church; on the priesthood, with the priest viewed as, at best, a minister of the Word rather than as an alter Christus; and on the faithful, who began looking upon the liturgy as something purely commemorative rather than as the principal way in which the Risen Christ remains faithful to his promise to be in the midst of His Church until the end of time. The seemingly innocuous gesture of the ad populum celebration of Mass (significantly not mentioned in the right of Mass promulgated by Paul VI, but almost universally adopted in the ‘spirit of the Council’) was in reality a paradigm shift of the first magnitude which changed everything. Catholics at Mass would no longer pray to God in the same direction as their mediator, but their mediator would face them in a closed circle which which seemed to banish any notion of mystery.
Thus–and this is why I am on topic–the penetration of the world into the Church. In this closed circle, with mystery seemingly banished, what was left apart from the human dimension, warts and all? And so Mass and the Church had to be made more interesting, more relevant … sexed up, to use an expression of our vulgar and banal age. And the rest, dear friends, is history ….
Hence Laudato Si. Whatever its merits–and I am far from saying that it is without merit–it is the product of an ecclesial mindset which is too ready to conform to the world rather than seeking to have the world conform to the Gospel.
I am puzzled if Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour, is now reigning gloriously in Heaven, and is our, only, Mediator with The Father, how exactly do we not face the same way as our Mediator at Holy Mass. Our prayer is to The Father who is not bound by the points of compass but is in Heaven.
If we are called to care for, and cultivate the earth, and God alone is the author of life, and the taking of human life is wrong, then to save the planet from our wilful destruction is surely part of the plan of God, and essentially common sense, and theologically sound.
You might as well argue (as do the Protestants) that our Father in Heaven doesn’t need the Church or the Mass.
As the Holy Mass is the perfect re-presentation of Calvary, and an anticipation of The Heavenly Banquet, and our food and sustenance on our pilgrimage through life, then it is a necessity, and not an add on.
Your argument is errant nonsense. Would St. John the Evangelist, representative of the celibate priesthood, have stood on Calvary with His back to His dying Lord?
As Martin Luther fully understood, the priest is central to the sacrifice. If the priest is turned from the high altar to face the people over a table, then over time he will gradually come to accept that he presides over a commemorative assembly meal rather than standing in the person of Christ the High Priest offering Christ the Victim to the Father for the remission of sins. Hence such language changes as “celebration of the Eucharist” instead of “Sacrifice of the Mass”.
There is a lot more to the New Mass than a simple compass change, as well you know, or should know.
The Altar is never a Table, but place of Sacrifice. It also becomes throne for Jesus in The Eucharist, and all eyes should behold their saviour.
The Church, in many documents, and in The Roman Missal itself speaks often of the celebration of The Holy Mass or The Eucharist.
With the very greatest respect, I think your assessment of the way the Council came into being and developed is rather naïve. I wish I could agree with it, but sorry to say I can’t.
The first thing we have to consider is that Pope John XXIII called Vatican II at a time when the Church was universally flourishing. The seminaries and religious houses were everywhere full, as were the chapels on a Sunday, the foreign missions were blossoming, devotion to Our Lady was at a new high and Anglican intellectuals were leading an exodus across the Tiber back to Rome. So the notion that there was a general air of expectation or desire for change to freshen things up is very far from the truth.
It has often been reported that John XXIII stunned those around him when he first mooted the idea of a Council. His Holiness spoke of the idea as a personal inspiration of the Holy Ghost, yet it was widely known that Pius XII had already considered a Council during his Pontificate (dogmatic of course) but had shelved the idea due to his age and a certain awareness of the agents of Modernism within the Church who were waiting for precisely such an opportunity to corrupt the Faith.
Hence the prophetic words of Pius XII quoted in the book of Mgr. Roche: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in her liturgy, her theology and her soul…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past. A day will come when the civilised world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” (Pie XII Devant L’Histoire, p. 52-53).
We should also bear in mind that the two Cardinals who succeeded Pius XII in the Chair of Peter had previously been sanctioned by him. Cardinal Roncalli for refusing to abandon the “Worker Priest” experiment in France, Cardinal Montini for disobeying the express command of Pius that there should be no dialogue with Communism.
Another worrying fact is that as soon as John XXIII became Pope he relieved the infamous Modernist Henri de Lubac from a ten-year teaching censure under Pius and appointed him to the lofty position of consultor and peritus to the upcoming Second Vatican Council. Paul VI later went further making de Lubac a member of the Theological Commission, as well as of two Secretariats. Paul VI would ultimately raise de Lubac to the Cardinalate.
It is widely held that Henri de Lubac was instrumental in the writing of two of the most controversial documents of Vatican II – Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes. This despite Pius XII having previously written Humani Generis in refutation of his many dangerous theological propositions.
Also curious, to say the least, was the action of John XXIII and Paul VI in appointing theologians as Periti (experts) to the Council whose names were inscribed on the Holy Office list of “those suspected of heresy”. These were the theologians of the “nouvelle théologie” (New Theology), known to us as Modernists. Some of them went on to reach great heights in the hierarchy.
As for the Novus Ordo Mass, this was no accident either. It was a deliberate dumbing down of Catholic theology to facilitate false ecumenism, previously condemned by the Magisterium. Paul VI alone was repsonsible for this and many of the other damaging changes in the Church, changes which effectively welcomed the spirit of the Protestant Reformation into the Church together with the rebellious spirit of its offspring, the French Revolution.
Did this Pope act maliciously against the Faith? None of us can assert such a thing. What we can assert with surety is that Pope Montini knew well the consistent teaching of his predecessors concerning the sacred and untouchable nature of the ancient Mass, right up to the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII. He was also fully conversant with centuries of Magisterial teaching condemning false ecumenism, religious liberty, etc., all of which errors flourished under his watch and have continued to flourish ever since.
But even if he had been personally ignorant of the facts, a good many senior theologians of the time reminded him of them, though to no avail.
So confident was Mgr. Annibale Bugnini of Paul VI’ unwavering support for the liturgical revolution that he was able to state in 1973 that the New Mass was “a major conquest of the Catholic Church”. This was the same Mgr. Bugnini who, in 1965, stated on behalf of the Pope that “we must remove from our Catholic liturgy and prayers all that can be the least stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, to the Protestants. It should have been clear then that this was not about winning Protestants back to Catholicism!!
God alone knows what has been in the minds and hearts of these innovator Popes since Vatican II. All I know is that, as St. Pius X warned regarding Modernists, there is not a single aspect of the Catholic Faith left unchanged and unsullied by them, and this in the name of a so-called “renewal” which has since resulted in the predictable, if unprecedented, near-universal apostasy of millions of souls from the true Faith.
If our forefathers returned today from the grave, they would not recognise what passes in the average parish church as in any way Catholic. Indeed, they would think they had stumbled into the temple of a Pentecostal Sect.
Little wonder, then, that Our Lady of Fatima spoke of the Third Secret as “a diabolical disorientation,” and why little Jacinta of Fatima encouraged prayers and sacrifices for the Holy Father. These are seriously worrying and unprecedented times, for sure. But Our Lord is still in charge of His Church and He will infallibly bring this present blindness to an end very soon. But as He Himself cautioned in the Gospels: “When the Son of Man returns, do you think He will find faith on earth”?
Those divine words are certainly worth pondering in conjunction with this warning of Gregory XVI, applicable to our time: “To use the words of the Fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church “was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain “restoration and regeneration” for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a “foundation may be laid of a new human institution,” and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing “may become a human Church…” (Encyclical Mirari Vos, 1832).
Sorry, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
It occurs to me that the modern Church, in embracing eco-madness, seeks to obstruct God’s plan for the world as outlined in the Apocalypse (a third of the waters poisoned, a tjird of the land burned up, etc.).
This would be entirely consistent with the modern Church’s deliberate frustration of Heaven’s plan to save the Catholic Faith and the world – albeit temporarily – through Our Lady and Fatima.
They act for Lucifer, not for Christ. But who wittingly and who unwittingly?
And God’s Holy Will will be done in any event. They must have lost the Faith.
Hey Editor, am I in pre-moderation? Please confirm. If so, I’ll get lost.
Editor: no, you’re not in pre-moderation. This happens from time to time and I can’t explain it. Blips. However, feel free to get lost anyway 😀 Kidding!
A little later that same day…
I’ve just checked your last post prior to these latest two going into moderation, and you’ve used yet another email address. Benedict, if you keep using different email addresses, the system thinks you’re a new blogger and so your posts will remain in moderation until I release them. Try to stick to the same email address and, ideally, attach an avatar to it. Brightens up the place, apart from the practical advantages.
I used the usual gmail address I think. There was a difference though Editor, that being that I posted both of the comments above from my mobile phone, which is physically in Ethiopia at the moment (as am I!) but was – via a VPN – showing itself as being in Finland. This to fool the Catholic Herald which has blocked my IP address today for what is probably the fiftieth or sixtieth time. I’d hate to be banned from Catholic Truth. It’s one of only three or four sane and orthodox blogs left.
There are two email addresses for you on the go – sometimes you login as Benedict Carter and sometimes as BCJCarter, not to mention Enid whatshername. So, have a heart – WordPress is only human after all… if you see what I mean!
As for being banned – we NEVER “ban” anyone. There have been occasions when a blogger has had to be put into moderation but that only happens here after warning – uniquely, I think I’m correct in saying, as most blogs are either pre-moderated for everyone all the time, or a perceived troublemaker just disappears without explanation. We do neither of these, asking only that our simple in-house rules (see About Us section) are observed and they boil down, really, to “stick to the topic, and don’t make personal remarks, beyond obvious light hearted joking” …
Like me calling you a numpty for leaving your phone in Ethiopia. I’ve heard it all now 😀
🙂 I am with it. If all goes well this week, I will probably be living here for the next five years or so. Prayers please: life has been something of a nightmare since last Summer when a business I was trying to open in Qatar was destroyed by the local Arab partner. I lost everything, so the meetings I have here in Addis Ababa this week are very important. New stability, new work.
I thought this article was very interesting, about the encyclical and the acceptance of evolutionary theory in it.
That does not surprise me given that the infamous Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, whose evolutionary and other writings were condemned by Pope John XXIII no less, gets a favourable mention in Pope Francis’ Encyclical.
Pope Benedict XVI, in his book Spirit of the Liturgy incorporates Teilhard’s vision as a touchstone of the Catholic Mass:
“And so we can now say that the goal of worship and the goal of creation as a whole are one and the same—divinization, a world of freedom and love. But this means that the historical makes its appearance in the cosmic. The cosmos is not a kind of closed building, a stationary container in which history may by chance take place. It is itself movement, from its one beginning to its one end. In a sense, creation is history. Against the background of the modern evolutionary world view, Teilhard de Chardin depicted the cosmos as a process of ascent, a series of unions. From very simple beginnings the path leads to ever greater and more complex unities, in which multiplicity is not abolished but merged into a growing synthesis, leading to the “Noosphere”, in which spirit and its understanding embrace the whole and are blended into a kind of living organism. Invoking the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, Teilhard looks on Christ as the energy that strives toward the Noosphere and finally incorporates everything in its “fullness’. From here Teilhard went on to give a new meaning to Christian worship: the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization of matter in the christological “fullness”. In his view, the Eucharist provides the movement of the cosmos with its direction; it anticipates its goal and at the same time urges it on”
Martin, what is the “noosphere”?
You do know, don;t you, that it is promoted by Russian loons (from some Soviet science fiction work of the 1950s I think) as a physical part of space where “anomalies” present themselves.
It’s pure neo-paganism.
It was attributed to Teilhard, and two others, in 1926.
Teilhard – ha – this also is attributed to Teilhard:
“We may say that it is the characteristic of minerals (as of many other organisms that have become incurably fixed) to have chosen a road which closed them prematurely in upon themselves”..
The first sinners were rocks…*
*The Unicorn in the Sanctuary.
How anyone can take the writings of Teilhard de Chardin seriously, beggars belief.
“How anyone can take the writings of Teilhard de Chardin seriously, beggars belief.”
With, I have to add, bells on ! When I tried to read de Chardin years ago, as a relatively young lady, well, maybe “lady” is the wrong word, but you’ll get my drift, I thought I was reading Chinese. Totally unintelligible rot. I am firmly of the opinion that nobody understands it, that the “theologians” pretend to understand it. Crème de la Crackers!
“Teilhard looks on Christ as the energy that strives toward the Noosphere and finally incorporates everything in its “fullness’.”
That statement ALONE should make you realise that Teilhard was a heretic. And we must take the words of any pope who quotes him favourably, with a massive pinch of salt, to put it as mildly as possible.
AND THEN THERE’S THIS…
“In his view, the Eucharist provides the movement of the cosmos with its direction; it anticipates its goal and at the same time urges it on”
What the HECK does that mean? What utter tosh! These clowns write this stuff which is senseless in the extreme, assuming, rightly, that the useful idiots who aspire to be thought of as “educated” will pretend to understand and promote their false ideas as “theology”. Theology my foot. I’ve read more theology in a D grade GCSE Religious Studies paper.
It was written by Cardinal Ratzinger, one of our most learned clerics, then Head of The C.D.F, and later The Pope, in his much praised book “The Spirit of The Liturgy”. I think he got a better degree, and has a better pedigree, than some of his critics. It is cited on pp15-16 in “The Collected Works Theology of The Liturgy”, Ignatius Press,2008, and I can’t, at present cite, although I have a copy, the original book.
Any decent Head of R.E., in any school, would acknowledge his esteemed scholarship. piety, and learning, and, more especially, his vocation and faith.
Editor: but do you KNOW any “decent Heads of RE in any school”? Your remark passes us by, Sugar Plum. We don’t know why your are writing about Heads of RE, decent or otherwise.
I think this “green encyclical” is simply more transparent pandering to the secular world, in the same vein of “who am I to judge?” and the crude efforts at legitimising adultery and sacrilege.
Francis should know his efforts to court the Godless are not working. The homosexual lobby which sang his praises only a short time ago is now turning on him, because he has not changed sexual ethics (I occasionally check out what enemies of the Church are talking about – its often a good barometer as to how well a Pope is doing his job).
Look at this reader comment from “pinknews”: (I inserted an asterisk)
As much as I loathed Ratzinger, I despise this one even more. At least Ratzinger didn’t try to hide under a cloak of disingenuous “I-love-you-all-so-much” bullcr*p used to fool the credulous.
Poor Francis! Hated even more than Benedict, who would have thought it? Seemingly without a friend in the world, as well as without a coherent strategy to his Pontificate.
He is failing to inspire the Church by being obsessed with the secular world, yet he is not winning any friends there. Seems to me like he “might as well” start living up to the title Pope.
Rorate Caeli got it right earlier today with Four days on, and no one is speaking of the most important and revolutionary encyclical in the history of mankind and all creation anymore…
It seems like the only legacy of this long-winded encyclical will be the very large “carbon footprint” its printing (200-odd pages I believe!) and distribution will cause.
Great post. However, according to this priest, no Catholic may “dissent” (I quote!) from it. Truly, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
http://www.onepeterfive.com/before-saving-mother-earth-lets-save-holy-mother-church/ if the holy father was as serious about preserving the Catholic faith as he is about preserving the natural world we would have a holier Church
Love your avatar!
Thanks for that link – very interesting and so true.
Great link from Spiritus above. Particularly liked “should not the Church save souls before saving trees” to paraphrase.
Fascinating reading the posts from Athanasius and Prognosticum.
I would be interested in either/or both your opinions on
In particular note the involvement of Pope John 23 and the Cardinal from Chicago, who no doubt was an ‘acquaintance’ of the global warming guru Mr Obama.
That this encyclical could have emenated from that pagan cabal should be seriously considered.
So would I, pretty please. I’ve been worried by this link since Waterside4 first drew it to bloggers’ attention some time ago.
Waterside4, pleeeese get an avatar! It helps a lot when scrolling down quickly to follow a particular discussion between bloggers.😇
Ok Christina will you now stop nagging me!
This was me playing golf in 8″ of white global warming 3 years ago.
You look GREAT and I LOVE the golf club!
Waterside4: Nagging? Moi? Perish the thought! I was only a faint echo of She Who Must Be Obeyed who occasionally nags avatarless bloggers.😷
I’ve just lost another post (about your link). I expect when I’m reunited with my computer the thread will be archived😨.
After 47 years 4 month 5 days and 9 hours of obeyance of “her” I would not dream of calling anyone on the distaff side a nagger. I have the lumps to prove it!
Please look up http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and look for who the Vatican is now courting. ‘knowme’ Klein a well known communistic commentator and activist. You really could not make it up.
I’d love to die a Catholic
With a life of no compunction,
But with all these closet Marxists
Who will give me extreme unction;
I deny there’s global warming
The real thermometers don’t lie,
Let’s see the reading of the great
Meteorologist in the sky.
The atheistic Schellnhuber
Wrote the Green Encyclical,
Made sure no climate realists
Showed his science was farcical;
He would stop the masses breeding
The lower classes he would bilk,
Like his Nazi hero Malthus
He would not wish it on his ilk.
For years it has been obvious
The Roman Church is in decline,
To stop the rot His Holiness
Has now turned to Naomi Klien;
A well known Jewish Communist
Who spouts the parables of Marx,
This Pope should be preaching gospels
Known as John, Matthew Luke and Mark’s.
The Master Plan is completed
With all the major players on board,
We must make the whole world equal
With energy we cannot afford
Let us stop the world evolving
Let’s kick away the lowest rung,
Make sure the poor of Africa
Continue cooking with dried dung.
Everyone is in on the act. Must be nice to be popular.
I saw that site a while back and wish a pro-life group would juxtapose those pictures and words of the Pope with pictures of aborted babies and his much gentler comments about those. It’s incredible to read his strong condemnation of animal cruelty alongside his much milder “disapproval”, shall we say, of the murder of unborn babies. Who would have ever dreamt we would live to see the day?
Comments are closed.