Saturday, November 19, 2016

I MUST SAY THAT POPE BENEDICT IS LOOKING WELL

Pope Francis brings new cardinals to Pope Benedict. I wonder if the two popes speak about the brewing crisis in the papacy which in my most humble opinion is more serious than the vatileaks and the intrigue in Pope Benedict's papacy, and far more serious, but  I could be wrong.
Let us also recall an interview with Archbishop Georg Ganswein:

An Expanded Petrine Ministry

Archbishop Ganswein said that for the last three years, Catholics have witnessed the unprecedented situation of living “with two living successors of Peter among us.” He said Benedict and Francis “are not in competition with each other, though they have an extraordinary presence.”

For Archbishop Ganswein, Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement on Feb. 11, 2013 marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: the Pope emeritus. Pope Benedict used a key phrase in his resignation speech: “munus Petrinum.” This phrase is often translated “Petrine Ministry.” According to the archbishop, the Latin word “munus” has many meanings: service, commitment, guide, gift, even wonder.

“Benedict XVI thought of his commitment as a participation in that Petrine ministry,” the archbishop said. “That means that he left the papal throne, but he did not abandon this ministry.”

Benedict XVI now acts “with a collegial and synodal dimension” and a “common ministry” that appears to echo his episcopal and papal motto: ‘cooperatores veritatis,’ ‘cooperators of the Truth’,” he said.

Hence, “since Pope Francis’ election, there are not two Popes, but there is a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.”

The archbishop said that this is why Benedict did not renounce his papal name or give up his white cassock.

“This is the reason why the correct appellation for him is ‘Your Holiness.’ This is finally the reason why he did not retire to an isolated monastery, but within the Vatican walls, as if he just took a step aside to make space for his successor and for a new step in the history of the papacy,” Archbishop Ganswein said.

This is how Benedict XVI has “profoundly and lastingly transformed” the papal ministry during his “exceptional pontificate.”

The ‘Prophecy of the Popes’

During the interview, Paul Badde referenced an old alleged prophecy that has recently gained traction in some clerical discussions: The “Prophesy of the Popes.” Also known as the “Prophesy of Malachy,” the prediction is attributed to Saint Philipp Neri – according to which, Pope Francis may be considered to be the last pope.

“Indeed, when looking at the prophecy, and considering how there was always a sound reference to popes mentioned in its history – that gives me the shivers,” Archbishop Gänswein admitted. Although Catholics aren’t required to accept the prophecy, “speaking from historical experience, one has to say: Yes, it is a wake-up call.”

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Three Ages of Man:

1. Youth
2. Middle Age
3. "My, you're looking well!"

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

4. "He looks so peaceful."

Mark Thomas said...

Did any Cardinals present today at Rome support publicly the "Four Cardinals"?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Dialogue - hehehehehe - "Just like he's sleeping..."

Richard said...

It even looks in this photo as if Francis is seeking the approval of pope Benedict; as well he should. Hopefully Pope Francis will soon take the time to sit at the knee of pope Benedict and ask for direction in correcting his highly problematic statements in his post synodal exhortation on the Joy of Marital Love.

Adam Michael said...

"Did any Cardinals present today at Rome support publicly the 'Four Cardinals'?"

I don't know. However, I hope some did. The Church needs clarity and unity of interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Anything less is unworthy of a Church that professes unity of Faith and discipline. It is alarming to see opposed interpretations of AL exist and expand in the Church and it is strange to see Pope Francis refuse to bring clarity to this situation.

rcg said...

Bring him up from the minors and swap out the current starter.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, the only cardinals present were the ones appointed by Francis. They are hardly likely to speak out publicly in support of the four cardinals are they? On the other hand it is being reported that Francis's failure to call a meeting of the cardinals for the consistory is because he did not want to be faced with further dubia. As for Francis saying communion cannot be given to the divorced and civilly remarried only you are contending that.

"In September, the Pope ended the ambiguity his document had caused when he wrote to the bishops of Argentina that there was “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion. While the letter made the pope’s position clear, it caused a firestorm among faithful Catholics who questioned the pope’s statement."

Faced with that letter, Cardinal Burke and the other cardinals have had to come forward and ask for clarification. Now, Mark Thomas, as Francis has not answered the four cardinals and confirmed he is opposed to communion for the divorced and civilly remarried one can only assume that his letter to the Argentinian bishops is his final position on the matter. Leaving you, Mark Thomas, once more with egg on your face but no doubt you will try once more to defend the indefensible.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Please provide a source for the statement you quote. I suspect it is highly misleading. My researches indicate that Pope Francis approved a letter written by the Argentinian Bishops articulating a position which was much more nuanced than the bald statement “there was ‘no other interpretation’ of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion” and which likely leaves Mark Thomas’s face eggless.

It is becoming even more important that we all guard against the propagation of false information that can cause dissension in the Church (or perhaps even sway elections).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2 I didn't bother putting the source of the statement because Francis's letter to the Argentinian bishops has been so well covered that I thought everyone knew - obviously not. However, an easy way to find out the source of a quote is to paste it into Google and the sites with the quote will be highlighted.

The following letter is what the quote is based on - Francis's original letter in Spanish

https://www.data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Criterios_aplicacio%CC%81n_AL_-_Regio%CC%81n_BA.pdf

Here is the English translation of the letter:

https://www.data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Letter_of_pope_to_Pastoral_Region_of_Buenos_Aires__September_5__2016.pdf

Francis's letter confirms the Argentinian bishops' directive which is here:

https://www.data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Basic_Criteria_for_the_Application_of_Chapter_VIII_of_Amoris_Laetitia__September_5__2016.pdf


The full story can be read at:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-no-other-interpretation-of-amoris-laetitia-than-allowing-communion-for

"Vatican Radio report: “Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-radio-confirms-popes-leaked-letter-on-amoris-laetitia-as-authentic



Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Thank you for the links. I had done the research and found them too. The point is that no reader should have to—those who post here should always give citations for quotations (or even controversial assertions), especially because the pasting into Google does not always work.

Moreover, the statement you quoted in your earlier post is terribly misleading, even deceptive, because it omits the crucial words “in some cases.” The Argentine Bishops’ document clarifies what those cases are and is very carefully nuanced indeed. None of this nuance is conveyed by the statement you quoted.

When I Googled the statement you quoted I got a different result than any of the links you give us now. Here is a link to the story with the passage you quoted, once again from Life Site News:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-new-point-man-on-family-rips-abp.-chaputs-amoris-guidelines-on-commun

I then clicked on the linked phrase “ended the ambiguity” and went down the trail that led me to all the rest.

Your error in not giving a citation was compounded by using a quote from an article that also omitted the critical words “in some cases.”

All of us are now aware that we live in an era of “fake news” and it is incumbent on all of us as Catholics committed to the truth to fight against the forces of deception. You and I have had many encounters on this blog over this issue before.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, the quote is not misleading because the Church has always taught that there are no cases where people living in mortal sin can receive communion. That is the point. Francis has deviated from Catholic teaching on this as are the Argentinian bishops. A person who is divorced and civilly remarried, even though it may not be their fault, is nonetheless living in a situation of mortal sin. There is no situation where a person can be allowed to receive communion in the state of mortal sin. There are no "in some cases". It is not charitable to give people a false illusion either that it is okay to do so. That is not mercy. And it is why the four cardinals have made the stand they have made.

These situations are difficult but everyone is called upon to make sacrifices in their own life situations. Just like someone whose spouse, by reason of illness, is no longer able to have conjugal relations that person has to undergo sacrifice and cannot seek out the arms of someone else and hope to receive communion.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

The quote is misleading because it suggests that all divorced and remarried can now receive communion without restriction. This is vastly different from suggesting that some divorced and remarried can now receive communion in certain restricted circumstances. One can certainly argue about what those circumstances should be but that is a separate point.

Also, it is too sweeping a generalization that “A person who is divorced and civilly remarried, even though it may not be their fault, is nonetheless living in a situation of mortal sin.” I believe that even the four Cardinals would say such a person is not living in a situation of mortal sin if he or she receives the sacrament of reconciliation with a firm purpose of being celibate in the future.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, sorry, but you obviously do not understand Catholic teaching on the subject of marriage. The only way someone living in a civil marriage could go to confession and receive absolution is if they ceased sexual relations with the person they have married in a civil ceremony or if the spouse from their Catholic marriage dies and they confess their sin and are then married in a Catholic ceremony. When Francis and the Argentinian bishops give permission to even just one or two cases they are not upholding Catholic doctrine on the matter. I suggest you read Remaining in the Truth of Christ and you will see that none of those four cardinals would agree with what you state. Therefore, the statement is not misleading because even one case is one too many and puts Francis into the category of heresy.

Jan

Jan said...

Sorry, Anonymous 2 I didn't read the last paragraph of your comment. While I agree that what you say could be correct, you must remember that Catholics must remove themselves from the dangerous occasions of sin. If the person seeking absolution continued to live in the same premises with their civil spouse that would be regarded as "a proximate state of sin" and absolution could be refused. That situation would pertain unless the couple were elderly or illness prevented them from having a sexual relationship.

"It is certain that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it. A refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm


Jan