"RORATE" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Friday, 14 July 2017

Vatican targets and insults faithful Catholics - The Unholy See

The gross insult to faithful, American (and many Canadians by extension) Catholics by Tony Spadaro is below. If one says that the Bishop of Rome did not know about it he surely does now. 

In this screed, he also targets Michael Voris and the folks at ChurchMilitant. By extension, this Jesuit attacks individual Catholics, including those of us who blog and think along the same lines as Michael Voris which to me, is to think with the Church. The Church of my childhood, the Church of my parents, the Church of my Maronite ancestors.

We did not ask for this. We were living in peace until that March in 2013. We have continued, in spite of the insults, degradation and heretical statements of the Bishop of Rome to continue to remain loyal to the Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church and the Rock of Peter and to do the work necessary and to which we have been called. In my case, it is the weekly chanting of the true and proper Mass in a community two hours from my home. A community growing, with many children, with an organist now ready to go on to Catholic college and her 12 year old sister preparing to take over playing 14 Gregorian Masses, five Creeds and more. My work continues in Toronto with the assistance and training for the proper and true Roman Mass. I will not be stopped. You must not be stopped.

This screed is a disgrace but it must be seen by all of us as a badge of honour.

Never, did I think, I would live to be insulted by the Bishop of Rome.

Rejouissance!


Image result for spadaro bergoglio

Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A surprising ecumenism

Antonio Spadaro S.J., Editor-in-chief of La Civiltà Cattolica

Marcelo Figueroa, Presbyterian pastor, Editor-in-chief of the Argentinean edition of L’Osservatore Romano
In God We Trust. This phrase is printed on the banknotes of the United States of America and is the current national motto. It appeared for the first time on a coin in 1864 but did not become official until Congress passed a motion in 1956. A motto is important for a nation whose foundation was rooted in religious motivations. For many it is a simple declaration of faith. For others, it is the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.

Religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse
Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad.
At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of September 11, 2001.  Today President Trump steers the fight against a wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.” Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on meanings that we could define as “epic.”
These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.
The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals. The author wanted to respond to the threat of modernist ideas of the time. He summarized the thought of authors whose doctrinal support he appreciated. He exemplified the moral, social, collective and individual aspects of the evangelical faith. His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The social-religious groups inspired by authors such as Stewart consider the United States to be a nation blessed by God. And they do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible. Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often “demonized.”
The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.
Within this narrative, whatever pushes toward conflict is not off limits. It does not take into account the bond between capital and profits and arms sales. Quite the opposite, often war itself is assimilated to the heroic conquests of the “Lord of Hosts” of Gideon and David. In this Manichaean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context.
Another interesting aspect is the relationship with creation of these religious groups that are composed mainly of whites from the deep American South. There is a sort of “anesthetic” with regard to ecological disasters and problems generated by climate change. They profess “dominionism” and consider ecologists as people who are against the Christian faith. They place their own roots in a literalist understanding of the creation narratives of the book of Genesis that put humanity in a position of “dominion” over creation, while creation remains subject to human will in biblical submission.
In this theological vision, natural disasters, dramatic climate change and the global ecological crisis are not only not perceived as an alarm that should lead them to reconsider their dogmas, but they are seen as the complete opposite: signs that confirm their non-allegorical understanding of the final figures of the Book of Revelation and their apocalyptic hope in a “new heaven and a new earth.”
Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan. In this sense, every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight). Such a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayals of a world that is living beyond the frontiers of its own “promised land.”
Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.[1]
“The first thing we have to do is give a voice to our Churches,” some say. The real meaning of this type of expression is the desire for some influence in the political and parliamentary sphere and in the juridical and educational areas so that public norms can be subjected to religious morals.
Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden.
Theology of prosperity and the rhetoric of religious liberty
Together with political Manichaeism, another relevant phenomenon is the passage from original puritan pietism, as expressed in Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, to the “Theology of Prosperity” that is mainly proposed in the media and by millionaire pastors and missionary organizations with strong religious, social and political influence. They proclaim a “Prosperity Gospel” for they believe God desires his followers to be physically healthy, materially rich and personally happy.
It is easy to note how some messages of the electoral campaign and their semiotics are full of references to evangelical fundamentalism. For example, we see political leaders appearing triumphant with a Bible in their hands.
Pastor Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) is an important figure who inspired US Presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. He officiated at the first wedding of the current president and the funeral of his parents. He was a successful preacher. He sold millions of copies of his book The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) that is full of phrases such as “If you believe in something, you get it”, “Nothing will stop you if you keep repeating: God is with me, who is against me” or “Keep in mind your vision of success and success will come” and so on. Many prosperity prosperous televangelists mix marketing, strategic direction and preaching, concentrating more on personal success than on salvation or eternal life.
A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.
Fundamentalist ecumenism
Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.
Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.
However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key.
Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”
The temptation of “spiritual war”
The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.
Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.
There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hilary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war.”[3]
This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment – had to be attributed to a divine intervention: in hoc signo vinces.
Church Militant asks if Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans. The response suggested is affirmative. The indirect missioning for President Trump is clear: he has to follow through on the consequences. This is a very direct message that then wants to condition the presidency by framing it as a divine election. In hoc signo vinces. Indeed.
Today, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armor, its rusty breastplate. The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now. And that divinity is obviously the projection of the power that has been built. This vision generates the ideology of conquest.
The theopolitical plan that is truly Christian would be eschatological, that is it applies to the future and orients current history toward the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace. This vision generates a process of integration that unfolds with a diplomacy that crowns no one as a “man of Providence.”
And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence. In this sphere, the pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power. So, there is no need to imagine a taking of sides for moral reasons, much worse for spiritual ones.
Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.” Understood this way, the “elected people” would enter a complicated political and religious web that would make them forget they are at the service of the world, placing them in opposition to those who are different, those who do not belong, that is the “enemy.”
So, then the Christian roots of a people are never to be understood in an ethnic way. The notions of roots and identity do not have the same content for a Catholic as for a neo-Pagan. Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity. The pope on May 9 in an interview with the French dailyLa Croix, said: “Yes Europe has Christian roots. Christianity has the duty of watering them, but in a spirit of service as in the washing of feet. The duty of Christianity for Europe is that of service.” And again: “The contribution of Christianity to a culture is that of Christ washing the feet, or the service and the gift of life. There is no room for colonialism.”
Against fear
Which feeling underlies the persuasive temptation for a spurious alliance between politics and religious fundamentalism? It is fear of the breakup of a constructed order and the fear of chaos. Indeed, it functions that way thanks to the chaos perceived. The political strategy for success becomes that of raising the tones of the conflictual, exaggerating disorder, agitating the souls of the people by painting worrying scenarios beyond any realism.
Religion at this point becomes a guarantor of order and a political part would incarnate its needs. The appeal to the apocalypse justifies the power desired by a god or colluded in with a god. And fundamentalism thereby shows itself not to be the product of a religious experience but a poor and abusive perversion of it.
This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity. Again, Francis is courageous here and gives no theological-political legitimacy to terrorists, avoiding any reduction of Islam to Islamic terrorism. Nor does he give it to those who postulate and want a “holy war” or to build barrier-fences crowned with barbed wire. The only crown that counts for the Christian is the one with thorns that Christ wore on high.[4]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Bannon believes in the apocalyptic vision that William Strauss and Neil Howe theorized in their book The Fourth Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. See also N. Howe, “Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book”, in The Washington Post, February 24, 2017.
[2] See A. Aresu, “Pope Francis against the Apocalypse”, in Macrogeo(www.macrogeo.global/analysis/pope-francis-against-the-apocalypse), June 9, 2017.
[3] See “Donald ‘Constantine’ Trump? Could Heaven be intervening directly in the election?”, in Church Militant (www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-donald-constantine-trump).

[4] For further reflection see D. J. Fares, “L’antropologia politica di Papa Francesco», in Civ. Catt. 2014 I 345-360; A. Spadaro, “La diplomazia di Francesco. La misericordia come processo politico”, ib 2016 I 209-226; D. J. Fares, “Papa Francesco e la politica”, ib 2016 I 373-385; J. L. Narvaja, “La crisi di ogni politica cristiana. Erich Przywara e l’‘idea di Europa’”, ib 2016 I 437-448; Id., “Il significato della politica internazionale di Francesco”, ib 2017 III 8-15.


22 comments:

Michael Dowd said...

Sanctimonious nonsense by a Papal mouthpiece. The bottom line is Pope Francis refuses to challenge the secular world but instead wants to get in bed with it.

In today Gospel Jesus told his disciples what to expect:
Jesus said to his Apostles:

"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves;
so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of men,
for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. For it will not be you who speak
but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.
When they persecute you in one town, flee to another.
Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel
before the Son of Man comes."

Pope Francis is clearly not following Jesus' admonition. Rather he is condemning those who preach and live the word of Christ.

Anonymous said...

Just as it was with our Lord and Savior, the worst persecution of those who follow Him will be at the hands of the unfaithful in the Church. Only this time it will be far worse than the persecution of the first Christians, if prophecy and Our Lady's words are true. And Bergoglio encourages the persecution with gusto.

Anonymous said...

Their getting worried.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

I don't claim to understand geopolitics, yet I blame not myself, but our schools, universities, media, politicians, secret societies and think tanks for this lack of understanding.

So maybe I am wrong in my observation that it is Bergoglio who pushes for conflict while proclaiming unity and peace, Hasn't he called Scalfari for another interview, as presidents Trump and Putin were shaking hands - to express deep concern regarding cooperation between some countries, which have a "distorted view of the world"? Isn't Syria under president Assad, who protects Christians from murderous Muslims one of those countries, as well? - USA, Russia and Syria all being similar to North Korea, according to Bergoglio?

In my limited understanding, I see an evil agenda here, Any opposition, however peace-striving, to Bergoglio's communist one world government, under his allegedly holy spirit-inspired leadership, is evil. USA and Russia are the new axis of evil!
The conflict-generating flooding of the West by an incompatible Islam, driven by the likes of Bergoglio, understandably, is not simultaneously very peace-inducing.

I see another thing taking place - all people with a clear understanding of their faith and its basic assumptions about humanity, God, and right and wrong, are in Bergoglio's brave new world dangerous extremists. Only being a morally relativist, anti-intellectual sodomite swine will do.

Homogeneity in the name of diversity is being enforced upon the world, and children, according to the Vatican, are to be used as "agents of change". If Bergoglio had his way, and he might, he might become more equitable as Stalin.

Equality of outcomes for all, equity, is Bergoglio's burning desire. No wonder he does not believe in the existence of hell. Sainthood for all! - Except those pesky fundamentalists.

Dan said...

Vox, we may be faithful to the Church, but I don't even know where that is anymore. And I fully realize that THEY don't care.....

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

P.S.
Our Lord Jesus washed the feet of those who followed Him, not those who rejected Him and persecuted Him.
The washing of the feet of His disciples was to signify His Incarnation as Salvation for all those who heard His Word, who accepted His Sacrifice. In other words, Jesus said - I came here to suffer for you, so that you can be saved in My Name!

To kneel before enemies of Christ, in service to them, is abhorrent! Bergoglio and his perverted team work for Satan. Is Bergoglio going to order us to serve the rapists/murderers of our daughters/mothers/ourselves? Why not? He orders us to bow before proclaimed enemies of Christ, enemies of the infidels, and to wash their feet.

They do not see Jesus Christ behind this idiotic gesture, but a weak, degenerate dog. If you don't believe it, ask them, Bergoglio. Easy for you to command from behind your Vatican walls. You are commanding us to self-destruct, to abandon all that is good and natural - all to create an anti-God, anti-human monstrosity in your image.

Ana Milan said...

If President Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans, then PF’s victory certainly cannot. Neither can it be attributed to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost but to the conspiring of certain influential Cardinals belonging to the Sankt Gallen Group mafia who, it seems, bullied an already grossly effeminate Hierarchy into supporting their man from Argentina – a known Peronist – with a view to undermining the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of the CC in favour of a Godless NWO fits-all religion where there is no Hell, no Sin, everyone gets to Heaven (if there is one) by good deeds & the few that don’t will be just annihilated. Marxist/Masonic/Modernism has got its grip on the Papacy (as predicted) & the results are catastrophic.

As the sin of Sodomy had become rampant throughout the prelature & priesthood leading to the Child Abuse Scandal with good Catholic heterosexual men, willing to embrace celibacy for the sake of Christ, constantly being turned away from our seminaries, it proved to be a pivotal moment in the history of Christendom with unimaginable consequences for the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church of Christ. Our Peronist Pope detests our former European Catholic culture which once provided the bulk of Catholic missionaries to Third World countries. He tells us to open our homes to Islamic migrants - terrorist youths taught to rape, pillage & even kill those who reject Islam. There is to be no attempt to convert them as their ‘religion’ is one of peace. Luther he holds in great esteem but completely ignores his own Cardinals when they request an audience in order to clarify five points in his Papal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. He is removing anyone of the slightest traditionalist leaning from the Curia & replacing them with the liberal limp-wristed variety in order to ensure that his successor will be of similar outlook to himself. PF is nothing but a politician greedy for power using the Papal Office for that purpose. How man-made Canon Law must be followed in this instance when the Word of God is being erased from Church teaching & the institutional Church is being crucified beggars belief. It must be a given necessity that the successors of St. Peter & First Apostles must be firm adherents & upholders of the Gospels, Ten Commandments, Liturgy & Sacraments that Christ bestowed upon us – anything else is of the Devil & must be avoided. Can we ever expect the formal correction to be publicly made & the convening of an imperfect council to tell us not to follow this Peronist to ruin?

tuleesh said...

It's not just anti-American bias that makes this editorial a hysterical and ignorant screed. It's The slipshod research that went into it as well.

A different article might have been produced had Fr. Sparado and Rev. Marcelo Figueroa done their homework. If they had read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, published in the 19th Century, they would've found that religion has influenced American life a singularly unique manner since it's f o u n d i n g. Heck! Come to think of it, they wouldn't even have to read Tocqueville. A reading of the American Declaration of Independence would probably have been enough… Maybe not, its too "Providence-centered." The Declaration gives the Almighty too much credit. They don't bother to mention the American blood spilled when brother fought brother to free humans from bondage in the Civil War. There are other examples which could've been used had they really wanted to. But, why stray from your narrative with facts.

Which brings out another glaring exclusion: America's religious pluralism. Which includes non-Judeo/Christian faiths. The editors write as if a diverse religious pluralism does not exist in the US! But hey, when it comes "theopolitics," Christian fundamentalists and ISIS are the same.

This pair write as if they're Marxist professors in a Lefty university. Instead of Christian pastors. No doubt they would use Howard Zinn's books as a texts for class.

P.S. Why is a Protestant minister an Editor-in-chief of any edition of L’Osservatore Romano? A supposedly Catholic newspaper?

Barona said...

If he was going to discuss the United States, Antonio Spadaro lost a great opportunity to discuss the grave errors in the foundation of that country. Freemasonry, the cult of "liberty" (especially "religious liberty") is the foundation of the United States. Indeed, the most important figure in American history is Henry VIII. Why? Because due to his rebellion the founders were all nominal protestants, deists, Freemasons. The past 200 years - with rare and notable exceptions - has seen the Church in the United States slide more and more into Americanism. Rather than resist the slide of liberalism, they slid. One can note the deafening silence and squirming when Pus IX published the Syllabus of Errors. Or, when Pus XI published Quas Primas. Jesus Christ as the King of the United States? Absolutely not! Jefferson (e.g), drank deeply from the poisonous well of the thought of John Locke; another looming figure over the United States. Our Lord Jesus Christ was far from his twisted mind when he composed political philosophy.

Instead, Fr. Spadaro attempted to link Michael Voris - a voice in the wilderness opposed to Americanism - to protestant heretics imbued with a false nationalism. Then, in his follow-up interview with "America" he espoused a concept of the State that would make any Freemason proud through his promotion of the lay State. Spadaro is a classic 19th century liberal, and writes with a masonic spirit. He would have been at home with Jefferson, Washington or any of the other Deistic Freemasons who made "liberty" the philosophical foundations to build a new country. There was no room for Our Lord or His Church. Nor is there any room for Our Lord or His Church - except for "dialogue" - according to Spadaro.

Anonymous said...

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/07/13/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/vatican-charges-two-exofficials-over-funding-for-cardinal-bertones-apartment-HuzoN8vAO8JuWbh4WRZqLP/pagina.html

Mary Kay said...

This is, frankly, laughable. I particularly appreciate his 'research'. Yes, I had to do better than that in my first year of college, but I'm sure it's been a while for him. And his lumping together of all of the disparate groups is amusing. He's trying so hard to make a point but failing epically. Maybe this was his first draft....

Anonymous said...

He sounds like an "elitist inquisitorial beater."

Anonymous said...

Tony Spadaro needs to read Pastor Norman Vincent Peale's "Power of positive thinking". There is so much negativity in his understanding of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

Catholic Mission said...

JULY 15, 2017

Experts agree.No denial from Vatican.Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise.Violates Principle of Non Contradiction
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/experts-agreeno-denial-from-vaticanpope.html

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Third Council of Constantinople

Session XVI - Extracts from the Acts

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that makes peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!

Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

++++++++++++

That Honorius was a heretic was reiterated in the Council's letter to Pope Agatho

Tom A. said...

BTW, you were not insulted by the Bishop of Rome. You were insulted by an Argentinian Leftist imposter. Much confusion and error is propogated by refering to a public heretic as somehow being a Catholic. Its scandalous.

Maudie N Mandeville said...

I wonder what Michael Voris thinks of his ban on criticizing Pope Francis. It doesn't seem to have paid off in any way, shape or form. I guess he can ignore the elephant in the room and continue being critical of all of Francis' appointees and mouthpieces. I ask this because I was banned a few years ago by one of Michael's interns.ūüė©

Tom A. said...

Ana, you dont need an imperfect council or a formal correction from fellow modernists to stop following the Peronist imposter.

Michael Dowd said...

Maudie. You are right about Voris. He is under the guidance of Opus Dei who now may distance themselves from him. I too was banned for being critical of dear Pope. Voris has a split personality on the Church's management who are massively infected with blatant homosexuality.

viterbo said...

Hello to "Amateur B.S." commenting. The list you supply is a list unapproved of by Christ's Church. Please, folks, bother to know the Catholic Faith if you claim to witness for Her.

http://novusordowatch.org/primacy-infallibility-pope-honorius-i/

https://youtu.be/WAmqlOfbcb8

https://youtu.be/xeBO1YWQgSg

Our Lady of Carmel, intercede.

viterbo said...

PS. The hatred being encouraged in the Novus Ordo for true Popes is saddening; ipso fact, it nourishes a hatred for Christ and His True bequest.

The heresiarchs of VII have done their job. If one takes an antichrist for Christ's representaive, due to the belief that an antipapal non-Catholic is a proxy/Vicar of Christ, as promulgated in the VII religion invited by Roncalli (John), instituted by Montini (Paul) and promulgated by John Paul I and John Paul II and Ratzinger, and Bergoglio of the Novus Ordo (New Order)...God is not making this difficult for for those with even the slightest sight of Faith; if one accepts a heresiarch/wolf as Christ the Shepherd's steward, one is worse than a Protestant. The promise of the protection of the Holy Ghost upon true doctrine/teaching is flouted, disbelieved, blasphemed.

Irenaeus said...

Ugh. So much verbiage in the piece by Spadaro. He needs to get out of his head. Dumb it down for us stupid laity!