Prophet or fool? I report; you decide!
It was Peter who answered on behalf of the others: “You are the Christ” (ibid.), that is, the Messiah. Peter's answer, which was not revealed to him by “flesh and blood” but was given to him by the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 16: 17), contains, as in a seed, the future confession of faith of the Church. However, Peter had not yet understood the profound content of Jesus' Messianic mission, the new meaning of this word: Messiah.
He demonstrates this a little later, inferring that the Messiah whom he is following in his dreams is very different from God’s true plan. He was shocked by the Lord's announcement of the Passion and protested, prompting a lively reaction from Jesus (cf. Mk 8: 32-33).
Peter wanted as Messiah a “divine man” who would fulfil the expectations of the people by imposing his power upon them all: We would also like the Lord to impose his power and transform the world instantly. Jesus presented himself as a “human God,” the Servant of God, who turned the crowd’s expectations upside-down by taking a path of humility and suffering.
This is the great alternative that we must learn over and over again: to give priority to our own expectations, rejecting Jesus, or to accept Jesus in the truth of his mission and set aside all too human expectations.
Peter, impulsive as he was, did not hesitate to take Jesus aside and rebuke him. Jesus’ answer demolished all his false expectations, calling him to conversion and to follow him: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mk 8: 33). It is not for you to show me the way; I take my own way and you should follow me.
Peter thus learned what following Jesus truly means. It was his second call, similar to Abraham’s in Genesis 22, after that in Genesis 12: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel's will save it" (Mk 8: 34-35). This is the demanding rule of the following of Christ: one must be able, if necessary, to give up the whole world to save the true values, to save the soul, to save the presence of God in the world (cf. Mk 8: 36-37). And though with difficulty, Peter accepted the invitation and continued his life in the Master's footsteps.
And it seems to me that these conversions of St. Peter on different occasions, and his whole figure, are a great consolation and a great lesson for us. We, too, have a desire for God; we, too, want to be generous, but we, too, expect God to be strong in the world and to transform the world on the spot, according to our ideas and the needs that we perceive.
God chooses a different way. God chooses the way of the transformation of hearts in suffering and in humility. And we, like Peter, must convert, over and over again. We must follow Jesus and not go before him: it is he who shows us the way.
So it is that Peter tells us: You think you have the recipe and that it is up to you to transform Christianity, but it is the Lord who knows the way. It is the Lord who says to me, who says to you: Follow me! And we must have the courage and humility to follow Jesus, because he is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Archbishop Vigano’s message in full:
“We cannot avoid to see, as a sign of Providence, that you, Pope Francis and brother Bishops representing the entire Church, have come together on the very day on which we celebrate the memory of St. Peter Damian.
“Peter was to live another important moment of his spiritual journey near Caesarea Philippi when Jesus asked the disciples a precise question: ‘Who do men say that I am?’ (Mk 8: 27). But for Jesus hearsay did not suffice. He wanted from those who had agreed to be personally involved with him a personal statement of their position. Consequently, he insisted: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mk 8: 29).
It was Peter who answered on behalf of the others: “You are the Christ” (ibid.), that is, the Messiah. Peter's answer, which was not revealed to him by “flesh and blood” but was given to him by the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 16: 17), contains, as in a seed, the future confession of faith of the Church. However, Peter had not yet understood the profound content of Jesus' Messianic mission, the new meaning of this word: Messiah.
He demonstrates this a little later, inferring that the Messiah whom he is following in his dreams is very different from God’s true plan. He was shocked by the Lord's announcement of the Passion and protested, prompting a lively reaction from Jesus (cf. Mk 8: 32-33).
Peter wanted as Messiah a “divine man” who would fulfil the expectations of the people by imposing his power upon them all: We would also like the Lord to impose his power and transform the world instantly. Jesus presented himself as a “human God,” the Servant of God, who turned the crowd’s expectations upside-down by taking a path of humility and suffering.
This is the great alternative that we must learn over and over again: to give priority to our own expectations, rejecting Jesus, or to accept Jesus in the truth of his mission and set aside all too human expectations.
Peter, impulsive as he was, did not hesitate to take Jesus aside and rebuke him. Jesus’ answer demolished all his false expectations, calling him to conversion and to follow him: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mk 8: 33). It is not for you to show me the way; I take my own way and you should follow me.
Peter thus learned what following Jesus truly means. It was his second call, similar to Abraham’s in Genesis 22, after that in Genesis 12: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel's will save it" (Mk 8: 34-35). This is the demanding rule of the following of Christ: one must be able, if necessary, to give up the whole world to save the true values, to save the soul, to save the presence of God in the world (cf. Mk 8: 36-37). And though with difficulty, Peter accepted the invitation and continued his life in the Master's footsteps.
And it seems to me that these conversions of St. Peter on different occasions, and his whole figure, are a great consolation and a great lesson for us. We, too, have a desire for God; we, too, want to be generous, but we, too, expect God to be strong in the world and to transform the world on the spot, according to our ideas and the needs that we perceive.
God chooses a different way. God chooses the way of the transformation of hearts in suffering and in humility. And we, like Peter, must convert, over and over again. We must follow Jesus and not go before him: it is he who shows us the way.
So it is that Peter tells us: You think you have the recipe and that it is up to you to transform Christianity, but it is the Lord who knows the way. It is the Lord who says to me, who says to you: Follow me! And we must have the courage and humility to follow Jesus, because he is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Maria, Mater Ecclesiae, Ora pro nobis,
Maria, Regina Apostolorum, Ora pro nobis.
Maria, Mater Gratiae, Mater Misericordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege et mortis hora suscipe.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
February 21, 2019
Memory of St. Peter Damian
34 comments:
I predict the synod will result in nothing except enough hot-air to result in global warming.
God Bless Archbishop Vigano
Yesterday, in different thread, Father Fox said..."That's why McCarrick was such a trigger. The stories and rumors have swirled around him for years, and people were told, oh no, that's all trash. Welp...it turned out to be true. And clearly lots of people in high places knew, and they enabled him, and they lied."
With Father McDonald's permission, I would like to discuss the above as the following pertains to Archbishop Viganò:
Father Fox, if Archbishop Viganò is to be believed:
-- Pope Benedict XVI knew that then-Cardinal McCarrick was a predatory molestor. However, Pope Benedict XVI never informed the Church that then-Cardinal McCarrick was a molestor.
-- Then-Cardinal McCarrick attended events that featured Pope Benedict XVI. Then-Cardinal McCarrick had traveled the world freely.
-- Pope Benedict XVI had given every impression publicly that then-Cardinal McCarrick was in good standing with the Church.
=============================================================================
Archbishop Viganò knew that then-Cardinal McCarrick was a molestor.
-- However, Archbishop Viganò refused to have sounded the alarm publicly about then-Cardinal McCarrick.
-- To the contrary, Archbishop Viganò, via his words and actions, had given us every reason to have believed that then-Cardinal McCarrick was in good standing with the Church.
-- Archbishop Viganò concelebrated Mass with sexual predator, then-Cardinal McCarrick.
-- During as gala dinner, Archbishop Viganò, honored and heaped praise upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.
-- Here is a photo of Archbishop Viganò having congratulated then-Cardinal McCarrick at said gala.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/09/01/former-nuncio-now-says-sanctions-against-mccarrick-were-private/
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Fox, you addressed yesterday to me the following:
"The point right now is the problem of the bishops. Their accountability and their clericalism. That's why McCarrick was such a trigger. The stories and rumors have swirled around him for years, and people were told, oh no, that's all trash. Welp...it turned out to be true. And clearly lots of people in high places knew, and they enabled him, and they lied."
Father Fox, Archbishop Viganò has claimed that Pope Benedict XVI knew that then-Cardinal McCarrick was a sexual predator...a monster.
=====================================================================
Father Fox, do you believe Archbishop Viganò's above claim? Are you outraged that Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Viganò had refused for years to have broadcast the truth publicly about then-Cardinal McCarrick?
=====================================================================
Father Fox, what should be done to Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Viganò for their having refused to reveal the truth about then-Cardinal McCarrick?
Via their public silence about then-Cardinal McCarrick, who traveled the world freely, Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop enabled then-Cardinal McCarrick. Correct?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dear Annoying Mark,
Like ANY pope would, including this one, Benedict needed to exercise great care in no scandalizing the faithful and scattering the sheep by striking the shepherd, unless absolutely necessary. We know now that he quietly placed several restrictions on McCarrick.
Vigano was also sworn to secrecy about a number of these things. He has made the difficult decision of breaking his promise for the greater good, which means exposing the corrupt underground of perverted priests and bishops for all to see.
If only you were half as concerned with the state of the Church as you appear to be with playing "gotcha" with everyone you disagree with. Talk about an utter lack of humility!
MT,
Thanks for the laughs. Newsflash: Pope Benedict no longer occupies the Throne of St. Peter. What has your Golden Calf done about the clerics at the Vatican engaged in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy. These are young clerics not old has-beens like McCarrick whose usefulness to the Church is over? You are probably the most myopic person I have ever encountered.
ps: you realize that McCarrick was appointed bishop by your fellow lefty, Paul VI? When will your tirade work him into the mix? I think he has a lot of "splainin" to do, don't you?
Father Fox, you addressed yesterday to me the following:
"A lot of what you said is valid, but beside the point. Absolutely, the crisis of priests abusing teens and younger in the U.S. is mostly in the rear-view mirror, and yes, changes made in 2002 have made a huge difference.
"But you are -- I am sorry to say, WILLFULLY -- missing the point.
"The point right now is the problem of the bishops. Their accountability and their clericalism. That's why McCarrick was such a trigger. The stories and rumors have swirled around him for years, and people were told, oh no, that's all trash. Welp...it turned out to be true. And clearly lots of people in high places knew, and they enabled him, and they lied.
"The anger, Mark, is over this specific phenomenon of the knowing, winking indifference of those higher ups to all this trash."
================================================================================
Okay. Fine. The outrage is about "people in high places" within the Church who knew about, and "enabled," sexual predators.
Again, as you mentioned then-Cardinal McCarrick, we need to investigate Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratinger).
-- Pope Benedict XVI had known that then-Cardinal McCarrick was a sexual predator, according to Archbishop Viganò.
-- Archbishop Viganò must be investigated as he had known that then-Cardinal McCarrick was a sexual predator.
-- One priest after another accused of sexual assault had served during the Pontificates of Popes Pius XI and Venerable Pius XII. Therefore, investigations of said Popes are warranted.
-- One Cardinal and bishop after another appointed by Popes Pius XI and Venerable Pius XII "enabled" predator priests. Therefore, said Cardinals and bishops warrant investigations to determine their guilt.
Each Pope from Pius XI to Francis must be investigated. Cardinals and bishops appointed by said Popes must be investigated.
The above is warranted. After all, we must identify, then reprimand, enablers within the hierarchy. Correct?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
Take your meds
CORRECT!!! But to make things easier Mark, let's start with the current Vatican occupant and work backwards....
Father Dan,
Excellent point, but MT, a leftist, will never criticize PF, a fellow leftist.
Bee here:
Fr. McD asked, "Archbishop Vigano...Prophet or fool?"
I say neither. I see him as someone who knows what is going on behind the scenes and is fed up with the corruption, lies, unwillingness to correct, and the perpetration of this fiasco on the Catholic faithful. I see him as a man who knows he knows right from wrong, and who knows he will have to pay dearly to God for not acting in some way to bring about a correction. If they don't correct, it won't be because he helped them by saying nothing. I have to believe he's followed Jesus' teaching on this:
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matt. 18:15-17
I believe we are at the stage where Vigano is telling it to the Church.
I think he's extremely noble and virtuous, and is willing to lose everything for the love of God. "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul in the process?" Mark 8:36 I admire him. Thank God for him!
God bless.
Bee
Bee,
Beautifully stated
Anonymous Disgusted Observer said..."Like ANY pope would, including this one, Benedict needed to exercise great care in no scandalizing the faithful and scattering the sheep by striking the shepherd, unless absolutely necessary. We know now that he quietly placed several restrictions on McCarrick."
Oh...I see. Got it.
Pope Benedict XVI could not risk scandalizing the Faithful in regard to sexual predator McCarrick.
Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI refused to warn the world that McCarrick was a sexual predator.
McCarrick ignored the restrictions placed upon him by Pope Benedict XVI.
In turn, rather than place a stop to McCarrick, Pope Benedict XVI permitted McCarrick, a sexual predator, to roam free.
Okay, Anonymous. I see. Got it.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous Disgusted Observer said..."Vigano was also sworn to secrecy about a number of these things."
Ahhh...I understand.
Rather than warn people that McCarrick, a sexual predator, was on the prowl, Archbishop Viganò had been sworn to secrecy.
Archbishop Viganò concelebrated Mass with then-Cardinal McCarrick.
Ummm...secrecy required Archbishop Viganò to go along with that. Right?
At the gala dinner in McCarrick's honor, Archbishop Viganò greeted McCarrick warmly.
Archbishop Viganò praised McCarrick...then presented McCarrick as a holy, wonderful man of God.
Secrecy required Archbishop Viganò to have lied about McCarrick...to have assured the world that McCarrick was a holy man.
Oh, okay. Sure, Anonymous. Uh-huh.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Ditto that, Bee Here.
Dear Mr. Thomas,
Sarcasm is the refuge of losers.
No one is denying that Vigano was involved in anything you've detailed. Since you obviously know more about being Catholic than the rest of us, then surely you know that a Mass and sacraments offered by even the most sinful of priests is still valid.
Yes, Vigano knew. Obviously. AND HE OBVIOUSLY HAS HAD A SERIOUS CHANGE OF HEART! Why else would he put his ecclesial position and his own personal safety on the line?
What human would ever repent if he had a guarantee that his repentance would lead to someone taunting him after his Confession about his past sins? Why are you so invested with joining ranks with The Accuser?
Your petty taunts are not only tiresome....they're cringeworthy. As I read them, I am embarrassed for you.
Disgusted Observer,
Archbishop Viganò was sworn to secrecy? Therefore, for years, although he had known that McCarrick was a sexual predator, the Archbishop refused to have sounded the alarm about then-Cardinal McCarrick.
However, Archbishop Viganò was pleased to have trashed and defamed the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
Archbishop Viganò did not hesitate to pretend that Pope Francis had lifted strict "canonical sanctions" against then-Cardinal McCarrick.
That was a lie...a lie that Archbishop Viganò changed to just "sanctions"...then admitted that sanctions had never been placed upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.
Archbishop Viganò did not hesitate to demand that Pope Francis resign as Pontiff.
However, at the gala dinner in honor of McCarrick, Archbishop Viganò greeted him warmly, posed for photos with him, then praised him as a holy and wonderful man...having known that McCarrick was a sexual predator.
That is Archbishop Viganò. He declared at a gala dinner that McCarrick, a sexual predator, was a holy man...but did not hesitate to have defamed the Vicar of Christ.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
PF is doing a great job of defaming himself. LOL
Like I said (or asked)...why are you so invested in joining the Accuser?
Vigano was not the only person to put up a pretense with McCormick, but he IS about the only one with the guts to come forward and renounce the whole charade.
I just don't understand your infantile game of "gotcha". I'm not playing it with you.
Disgusted Observer said..."Vigano was not the only person to put up a pretense with McCormick, but he IS about the only one with the guts to come forward and renounce the whole charade."
Do you know as to why Archbishop Viganò had come forward? He revealed via his third "testimony" as to why he had come forward.
He came forward as he made it clear that he differed doctrinally with the Vicar of Christ.
His crusade was ignited not by his desire to reveal that then-Cardinal McCarrick was/is a sexual predator. It wasn't to protect potential victims from McCarrick.
Nope...
In cooperation with right-wing Catholic blogosphere forces who hate the Vicar of Christ, on the Pope's final day in Ireland, Archbishop Viganò attacked and demanded the Pontiff's resignation as he, Archbishop Viganò, differed theologically with Pope Francis.
Archbishop Viganò was upset with Pope Francis in regard to theological matters.
Archbishop Viganò has joined dissenters throughout history who opposed Popes doctrinally.
The Archbishop's third "testimony" is very revealing.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Disgusted Observer
MT is a case of arrested emotional and intellectual development. He has now been written off by me, Father Fox, I believe John Nolan, and now you. There may be others. You are in good company
Which "third testimony?" Please quote the passage you speak of....
And OF COURSE he differs doctrinally from Francis. Most Catholics do.....
TJM:
Thanks for the kind words. Besides, I never bother arguing with people who know everything.
Great point Dan! For the first time in history, it's not very difficult to "be more Catholic than the pope"!
Dan said..."Which "third testimony?" Please quote the passage you speak of...."
"I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. "
"Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
"Therefore I spoke."
=============================================================================
Archbishop Viganò admitted that he spoke not to bring justice to McCarrick's victims...not to end McCarrick's reign of sexual abuse terror...
...recall that Archbishop Viganò, at the gala dinner for McCarrick, posed in warm fashion, smiled, with McCarrick, then honored and praised McCarrick during his (Viganò's) speech...
...did not come forward to speak on behalf of all victims of perverted priests.
Nope.
Archbishop Viganò admitted that he attacked Pope Francis over doctrinal differences.
He joined with right-wing Catholic blogosphere haters of Pope Francis to attack and defame His Holiness in regard to doctrinal differences.
"Therefore, I spoke."
That is Archbishop Viganò's very revealing third "testimony."
It is all about his dissenting from Pope Francis' teaching authority...to which God commands Archbishop Viganò to submit.
With "Pontiical permission," Cardinal Ouellet, in merciful fashion, invited Archbishop Viganò to "return to communion" with His Holiness Pope Francis.
May Archbishop Viganò end his mutiny against God and His Holy Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Is Ouellet saying that Vigano is not in communion with the Pope and therefore a schismatic? Or that to criticize PF is in itself schismatic?
No doubt MT would have us believe that it is also blasphemous, since he (MT) subscribes to the heretical notion that PF is an oracle of God and when we listen to him we are hearing Jesus Christ.
Good thing that he spoke.... I hope he keeps on speaking...
Btw MT, if it's the pope in mutiny against God and His Holy Church, we've got problems that SHOULD be addressed by the likes of Vigano, regardless of motives.
John Nolan said..."No doubt MT would have us believe that it is also blasphemous, since he (MT) subscribes to the heretical notion that PF is an oracle of God and when we listen to him we are hearing Jesus Christ."
Second Vatican Council:
Lumen Gentium, #20: "Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... "May Archbishop Viganò end his mutiny against God and His Holy Church."
The true Church has never excommunicated Archbishop Vigano, so therefore he is still a member in good standing, which means, according to you, he is in communion with His Holiness Pope Francis.
And because he is in communion with Pope Francis, Archbishop Vigano fulfills your definition of being orthodox; i.e., all persons who are in communion with Pope Francis are ipso facto orthodox.
That has been your position in the past on this very blog.
Therefore, if Archbishop Vigano is a member of the Church in good standing and is orthodox, he is not in "mutiny against God and His holy Church."
However, if Archbishop Vigano is orthodox (and you believe that he is) but he has "doctrinal differences" with Pope Francis, there is indeed a problem.
If a person has "doctrinal differences" with someone who is orthodox, that makes such a person heterodox.
MT, you have taken Lumen Gentium out of context. So when a bishop diddles a little boy or a young man and tells him it is ok, that is the voice of Christ?
This entire thread is starting to smell like a horse barn and Mark Thomas seems to have the biggest bucket.
Mark Thomas:
I wish you well, but I am sad to say that I have given up on conversations with you. My reasons are clear enough from a prior thread, to one who really wants to know.
Smart move Father Fox. Unfortunately, more smug, self-righteous pontificating will still be coming your way courtesy of Mark T. He can't help himself.
Post a Comment