Saturday, March 31, 2018

MORE FAKE NEWS COMMENTARY AND OPINION FOR OUR DESCENT INTO HELL ON THIS HOLY SATURDAY?

Patrick Buchanan: Did the Pope Commit Rank Heresy?

CNS News Fri, Mar 30 7:11 AM EDT

42 comments:

TJM said...

I think it's better for commentators to hold off until all of the facts are known.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

This morning I was reading the Diary of St. Fautina Kowalska, "Divine Mercy in My Soul" and came across entry 741:

" Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one’s condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it, a terrible suffering, since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger; the fifth torture is conditional darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own; the sixth torture is the constant company of satan, the seventh torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies. These are the tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings. There are special tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings, related to the manner in which it has sinned. There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me. Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like.

I, sister Faustina, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence. I cannot speak about it now; but I have received a command from God to leave it in writing. The devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God. What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw.

But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell.

When I came to, I could hardly recover from the fright. How terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God’s mercy upon them. O my Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, then offend You by the least sin."

Very timely, no?

God bless.
Bee

rcg said...

TJM, you are correct. But this is repeat occurrence. Dear Pope Francis has this happen time and again and needs to address it. A lesson of responsible leadership is that sometimes you have to make an example of someone to teach a lesson to the group. Making an example of an an opponent is one lesson. Making an example of a friend is two.

Rood Screen said...

TJM,

The facts are known: Pope Francis has poor leadership skills.

George said...

The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in accordance with God the Father and by the power and assistance the Holy Spirit, took on our human nature and became incarnate in our existence. This was done to redeem man who no longer had the intended relationship to God, it having been broken due to the sin of the first man, Adam. Now, being a member of the Divine Trinity, Christ did not act solely on His own initiative , but rather in concert with the other two Persons who in unity and essence are of the One God. Since the members of the Divine society comprise one Being, no one Person acts independently of the others, since this would be acting against the very Divine nature, of which there is an unsurpassed unity, communion and cooperation. In the three Divine Persons, there is a unity of will and purpose, without division or difference in what is desired and intended.

God took this initiative to reconcile us to Himself through the Son, since mankind had become estranged from Him through the disobedience of Adam,our human father, and it was beyond anything man could do on his own to restore the broken relationship and merit eternal salvation. Only God in the person of Christ could accomplish this, since man, being of sinful condition, was incapable of securing his own redemption. Only the Second Person of God, by taking on our human nature, was the perfect unblemished sacrificial victim to accomplish what was necessary to purchase our salvation. Christ was incorporated into our flesh and took possession of our human nature so that we, if faithful to Him, could be incorporated into the Divine life of the Eternal Kingdom.

As Catholics true to our Faith, this is what we come to know and believe, and this is ever our reassurance, come what may.

The Egyptian said...

the truly sad part is that we Catholics have to be faced with this crap on Easter week and are forced to defend this pope, at the same time as we wish he would go AWAY

Mark Thomas said...

The latest supposed Pope Francis-related "controversy," which, to the overwhelming amount of Catholics is not a controversy — nobody cares about the fake news nonsense in question — is yesterday's news...fake news.

Nobody cares about it.

Catholics are focused upon Easter. They couldn't care less about the supposed "controversy" in question. Rather, they are filled with hope and joy in the Risen Christ.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/asia-bibi-rosary-from-pope-francis-is-a-great-consolation

Anonymous said...

“Nobody cares about it.”

I care about it. That a pope would deny two infallible doctrines of the Faith, the existence of Hell and the immorality of the soul, is earth shaking. If he believes that he’ll doesn’t existence then we need a new pope. If it isn’t true than an absolute crystal clear denial is required from the pope himself. Justice demands it. Again I care and I know lots of people who care. Words matter. And the fact that Francis keeps meeting with that man and major scandals always occur. Francis must know that problems are going to happen, why does he keep doing this. That’s what I want to know.

And if there is no hell then why bother with confession, why live a good life, why repent, why the Church, why the pope. If I’m just going to disappear then why be worried about anything?

Carlton said...

Patrick J. Buchanan, that "great" nativist and isolationist, that "great" defender of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, that "great" defender of economic elitism, is not the best voice to listen to when it comes to Pope Francis.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas:

Do you think it is a good idea for the pope to give repeated interviews to a serial liar?

TJM said...

MT,

Actually serious Catholics who are sentient, do care.

John Nolan said...

An ostrich literally buries its head in the sand - a myth.

Mark Thomas figuratively buries his head in the sand - all too true.

Otherwise he might be just a little worried about the direction the Church is taking under the present Pope.

I wish to God Donald Trump had not come up with the term 'fake news' to describe any news which may be unwelcome. It gives an excuse for those like Mark Thomas of whom it is written: There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox said..."Do you think it is a good idea for the pope to give repeated interviews to a serial liar?Father Fox, I wish you a blessed Easter. Thank you or your service to Holy Mother Church. (Each sentiment in question applies also to Father McDonald.)

Father Fox, His Holiness Pope Francis has said that his dealings with journalists constitute a "pastoral risk." He said that he worries about being "misinterpreted."

Pope Francis likened his encounters with journalists to that of our Risen Lord's encounter with the disciples along the road to Emmaus.

Pope Francis said, "For me, the interview is part of this conversation the church is having with men and women today."

I appreciate that which, despite the "pastoral risks" involved, Pope Francis desires to accomplish via his encounters with journalists.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, "serious Catholics" are aware that His Holiness Pope Francis has, on several occasions, reiterated that hell exists.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Pope Francis has taken pastoral risks.

Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI incurred "controversies" via the pastoral risks that they had undertaken.

Pope Saint John Paul II's endless series of "apologies" generated "controversies."

Pope Benedict XVI incurred controversies via the private opinions that he offered — opinions that certain journalists misrepresented as Papal teachings.

Pope Venerable Pius XII acknowledge the risks associated with the Church's involvement with the Ecumenical Movement. Nevertheless, Pope Venerable Pius XII launched the Church into the Ecumenical Movement.

Pope Francis' outreach to the SSPX is risky.

Popes take risks in regard to their pastoral decisions.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

“Popes take risks in regard to their pastoral decisions.L

Yes, but popes do not deny the existence of Hell and the immorality of the soul. Besides the fact that Francis has no authority to say such things but what does Our Lord say about shepherds who cause scandal.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas:

Thank you for your good wishes and kind words. A happy Easter to you!

That said, you did not directly answer my question. Perhaps it was an oversight. I don't like attempting to infer an answer, because that can be unfair to one whose answer is inferred. So I would appreciate a yes or a no to my question:

"Do you think it is a good idea for the pope to give repeated interviews to a serial liar?"

Pope Francis said...

Anonymous said..."Yes, but popes do not deny the existence of Hell and the immorality of the soul."

That is why His Holiness Pope Francis has never denied the existence of such things.

Pax

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father Martin Fox said..."So I would appreciate a yes or a no to my question:
"Do you think it is a good idea for the pope to give repeated interviews to a serial liar?"

Mea culpa, Father.

Based upon Pope Francis' reasons for interacting with journalists, I believe that it's proper for His Holiness to interact with Mr. Scalfari.

(Is he the person you identified as a "serial liar"?)

"Mainstream" journalists get the facts wrong in regard to their interactions with Pope Francis and additional Churchmen.

Dealing with journalists is a hit or miss proposition. That is, sometimes journalists report accurately...sometimes they don't.

That is what one faces when dealing with journalists. I am not certain that Mr. Scalfari is much different in that regard.
=====================================================

I support Pope Francis' decision to interact with Scalfari.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark:

Mr. Scalfari has consistently misrepresented the pope's views. How do I know? The Vatican has said so. These misrepresentations are grave, claiming he makes heretical statements. Since this has happened so many times, the pope can no longer be surprised. You say this is a good idea on the pope's part.

Please explain why it is good for the pope to facilitate interviews in which he is portrayed as a heretic.

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox, I believe that it's good for His Holiness Pope Francis to dialogue with Mr. Scalfari as it's clear that Pope Francis desires to bring Mr. Scalfari (as well as each person on earth) to Jesus Christ.

Here is the 2013 A.D. beautiful letter that Pope Francis addressed to Mr. Scalfari:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html

LETTER TO A NON-BELIEVER POPE FRANCIS RESPONDS TO DR. EUGENIO SCALFARI JOURNALIST OF THE ITALIAN NEWSPAPER "LA REPUBBLICA" From the Vatican, 4 September 2013
===================================================================================

At the end of his letter to Mr. Scalfari, Pope Francis made clear that the purpose of his dialogue with Mr. Scalfari is to "walk this path together...to live and witness to Jesus: he who has been sent by Abba, “to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19)."
==================================================================

As was noted three days ago in the Catholic Herald: "It is easy to believe the Holy Father motivated in his continued commerce with Scalfari by genuine charity, by desire that Scalfari’s soul be not lost."

Pope Francis said that his interaction with a journalist incurs a "pastoral risk...I know this can make me vulnerable." He said that he's aware that a journalist may "misinterpret" him.

But just as Jesus Christ took risks in regard to His service to others, Pope Francis has said that he will take risks as well.

Popes take pastoral risks.

Pope Francis will take risks with Mr. Scalfari as Mr. Scalfari, a non-believer, is in line to be evangelized.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox said..."Mr. Scalfari has consistently misrepresented the pope's views. How do I know? The Vatican has said so. These misrepresentations are grave, claiming he makes heretical statements. Since this has happened so many times, the pope can no longer be surprised."

Father, who said that Pope Francis is "surprised" in regard to his having been misinterpreted by Mr. Scalfari?

Again, as Pope Francis noted last year in regard to his interactions with journalists:

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/pope-on-interviews-church-must-listen-respond-to-peoples-questions.cfm

"I know this can make me vulnerable, but it is a risk I want to take. I want a church that knows how to enter into people's conversations, that knows how to dialogue."

The model is the Gospel account of the risen Lord's meeting with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. "The Lord 'interviews' the disciples who are walking discouraged," he said. "For me, the interview is part of this conversation the church is having with men and women today."

"Yes, I am afraid of being misinterpreted," he said. "But, I repeat, I want to run this pastoral risk."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox, let us recall please that during his Pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI authored books on Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict risked having his writings in question interpreted as Papal Magisterium.

Pope Benedict XVI referred to himself as "Joseph Ratzinger." He noted at that time that although he was Pope, he desired to offer personal opinions.

News media outlets had run sensationalistic headlines in regard to that which Pope Benedict XVI/"Joseph Ratzinger" had written.

CNN

November 23, 2012

Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions
=========================================================

"Controversy" raged following Pope Benedict's interview with journalist Peter Seewald:

Headlines shouted:

"Condoms may be 'first step' in moralization of sexuality, says Pope"

The Vatican was forced to clarify Pope Benedict's declarations in question.
=========================================================================

In regard to Pope Saint John Paul II's "controversial" apologies for "sins" committed supposedly by the Church:

In 1999 A.D., Cardinal Ratzinger and the International Theological Commission studied the topic “The Church and the Faults of the Past.”

In regard to the Papal "apologies" in question, Cardinal Ratzinger/International Theological Commission declared that "some of the faithful are disconcerted and their loyalty to the Church seems shaken."

Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger (and the ITC) praised the pastoral risk in question.

In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI, continued the Papal practice of apologizing for the Church's so-called "sins."

He knew that he had risked upsetting certain Catholics. Nevertheless, to advance the Gospel, Pope Benedict XVI had incurred the risk in question.
===================================================================

Popes take pastoral risks — as Jesus Christ did — to advance the Good News.

In light of that, is a Pope to blame when he has been misinterpreted/misrepresented?

Is Pope Francis to be blamed in regard to the current supposed "controversy" in regard to hell when, on several occasions, he confirmed hell's existence?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Pope Francis is not the risen Lord on the road to Emmaus. He is the Bishop of Rome, the servus servorum Dei, whose awesome task it is to pass on in its entirety the faith of the Church 'quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est'.

Pope John Paul II was not without his flaws. He was prone to 'grandstanding' and was a global celebrity. Yet he was without doubt the greatest man of the last quarter of the 20th century. But he held true to his mandate to 'confirm the brethren', even though in his last years he lost the respect of the secular media which had moved on to other issues such as the validity of women's ordination and the intrinsic morality of homosexual acts.

Those who criticize Francis do so on the grounds that instead of 'confirming the brethren' he sows confusion and ambiguity. Is this 'Jesuitical'? I honestly don't know. But to say, as Mark Thomas does, that it can be explained away because previous pontiffs have made mistakes appears to me to be disingenuous.

Also, those who have followed my comments on this blog will have noticed that I do not post hyperlinks. This is because I uphold the English debating tradition that what I have to say is my own opinion. I may quote sources in my support, that's fair enough.

I also believe that brevity is the source of wit.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark:

You defend the pope talking to Mr. Scalfari, but you don't defend the repeated publishe interviews that present the pope as a heretic. But what you fail to explain is why you think the latter is a necessary side effect of the former. Most people would ask Mr. Scalfari not to publish these interviews.

This leaves two options. First, that the pope has tried, but is unable to persuade Mr. Scalfari to stop publishing accounts. That equals bad faith on Mr. Scalfari's part.

Or, the pope does not care to have Mr. Scalfari stop publishing accounts portraying the pope as a heretic.

So I ask you: pick one, and explain why either is a good idea.

TJM said...

John Nolan and Father Fox,

Try as you might, obtaining a reasoned response from a person who may be non compos mentis is an up hill battle.

John Nolan said...

Nobody opens the links anyway. It gives the impression that the author has no real ideas of his own. If he wishes to attribute his views to others then that's all right. Without wishing to be too insular, I noticed 25 years ago that American undergraduates (from a campus near me in Lincolnshire which was part of the University of Evansville) were marked more on their footnotes than on their actual essays.

They were great people though, doing 'British studies'. I organized wine tastings plus a quiz for them in a wine bar they and I used to frequent. One girl, a Catholic, was keen to learn Latin. I gave her a bilingual missal published in 1984 by the Association for Latin Liturgy. I hope she found a use for it!

I have yet to meet an American who was not courteous, good-humoured, and genuinely inquisitive, as of course I am too. I learned a lot from them.

Anonymous said...

I for one tend to scroll by the endless links and quotations MT writes. If he would summarize or express his opinions in narrative form like everyone else on the blog, his ideas would be much more readable.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas, where are you?

Mark? Hello?

Mark Thomas said...

Hello, Father Fox.

Why is it a good idea for His Holiness Pope Francis to speak with Mr. Scalfari?

Again, Pope Francis has based his interactions with journalists upon
our Risen Lord's meeting with the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Pope Francis: "The Lord 'interviews' the disciples who are walking discouraged. For me, the interview is part of this conversation the church is having with men and women today."

I appreciate that. I appreciate Pope Francis' desire to evangelize Mr. Scalfari.

Thank you, Father Fox, for the opportunity to converse with you. Thank you for having responded in positive fashion to God, Who, in turn, called you into the priesthood. (Thank you, as well, to Father McDonald.)

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas:

You completely ignored the question I asked you. Your response wasn't just a little bit off. You steered completely clear of what I asked. That leads me to conclude that you are not conversing in good faith at this point. In one sense, I can sympathize, because it left you on the horns of a dilemma, and that is always an unpleasant place to be. Nevertheless, there were more forthright ways to respond than how you did. So I am sad to conclude that you do not act in good faith. Perhaps I am mistaken; if so, you can prove me wrong by actually responding to the question I posed at April 2, 10:56 am.

Or don't, and then I know where I stand.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Martin, you already know where you stand. Asking for "clarification" from Mark Thomas is an act of bad faith, since his reply will have no impact whatsoever on where you stand.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Anonymous at 8:07:

Please explain your mind reading technique.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Father Fox is acting in "bad faith?"LOL, you are the master of acting in bad faith, never responding to pointed questions that are inconvenient or embarrassing for you to answer because it would expose you as a lefty, rather than an orthodox Catholic priest. What crust

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox said..."This leaves two options. First, that the pope has tried, but is unable to persuade Mr. Scalfari to stop publishing accounts. That equals bad faith on Mr. Scalfari's part. Or, the pope does not care to have Mr. Scalfari stop publishing accounts portraying the pope as a heretic."

Or, as His Holiness Pope Francis said, while he's worried about being misinterpreted, he is willing to take a pastoral risk as he works to evangelize people.

The fact that Pope Francis doesn't denounce Mr. Scalfari doesn't mean that Pope Francis is pleased that he (Pope Francis) has been misinterpreted.

In regard to Pope Francis' situation with Mr. Scalfari, rather than having denounced Mr. Scalfari, at least publicly, Pope Francis, has, on several occasions, affirmed that hell exists.

Anyway, Pope Francis' style is fine with me. I don't have any problem with the manner in which he's dealt with Mr. Scalfari.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Fr. Martin, it doesn't take any mind reading expertise to know your position.

I might ask, "What "explanation" that anyone might offer would lead you to conclude that the interviews you worry about are entirely appropriate and useful?"

It seems clear to me that your answer would be, and would remain, "None." If I am wrong, you might explain what would alter your opinion.

It's not magic.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Anonymous:

You suppose that the only legitimate premise for a conversation such as Mr. Thomas and I entered into would be that he would change his mind, or that I would change mine. Now it appears you not only claim omniscience -- you can know my inner thoughts -- but you also claim omnipotence: you assert the right to define, for other people, the legitimate bounds of their conversations, to which you are not a party.

I am not accustomed to addressing would-be deities. How do you wish to be addressed? No promises, as I do not wish to return to my ancestors' polytheism.

Anonymous said...

"You suppose that the only legitimate premise for a conversation such as Mr. Thomas and I entered into would be that he would change his mind, or that I would change mine."

Nope. And I see you are falling into what you accuse me of - being able to read minds.

But, what answer might Mark Thomas give that WOULD change your mind? Enquiring minds want to know...

"Now it appears you not only claim omniscience -- you can know my inner thoughts -- but you also claim omnipotence: you assert the right to define, for other people, the legitimate bounds of their conversations, to which you are not a party."

Nope. Your inner thoughts can be known by your outer expressions. If a person says, "Donald Trump is the savior of the world!" we can know that that person's inner thoughts are severely distorted.

And, nope, this is not a conversation to which I am not a party. If you were not aware of it, be advised that YOU ARE POSTING ON A PUBLIC BLOG.

And you can address me as Your Most Serene Highness for all I care....

Fr Martin Fox said...

Anonymous:

Well, since you concede that Mr. Thomas and I need have premised our conversation on one or the other's mind being changed, then you have conceded the premise of your accusation of bad faith against me. Your whole argument was that unless I was prepared to change my mind, my interactions represented bad faith. So now you admit your accusation was baseless.

I accept your apology.

Anonymous said...

"Well, since you concede that Mr. Thomas and I need have premised our conversation on one or the other's mind being changed,...

I did no such thing. I suspect it was most certainly PART of the premise of your PUBLIC conversation. Changing people's minds - or changing one's own when presented with incontrovertible data - is ONE possible premise. You'll admit there are others, I'm sure.

Why do you attack ME for supposedly knowing how to read minds when you do EXACTLY the same?

"I accept your apology" is about as lame as it gets.

Fr Martin Fox said...

"Why do you attack ME for supposedly knowing how to read minds when you do EXACTLY the same?"

I didn't attack you. I defended myself against your accusation that I was acting in bad faith -- which you, earlier, premised on your supposition that our conversation could only be in good faith, if it was possible I might change my mind. Here is that accusation:

Fr. Martin, you already know where you stand. Asking for "clarification" from Mark Thomas is an act of bad faith, since his reply will have no impact whatsoever on where you stand.

Then you conceded this was not necessary after all:

My question to you: "You suppose that the only legitimate premise for a conversation such as Mr. Thomas and I entered into would be that he would change his mind, or that I would change mine."

Your answer: "Nope."

So your accusation of bad faith was -- by your own admission -- false. I was willing to credit you with the decency of apologizing for that false accusation. I'm sorry to see I was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Your attack: "Please explain your mind reading technique."

Yes, it is an attack, not a defense. You make it sound so unassuming and precious, but it is a slam.

You do the same: "You suppose that the only legitimate premise for a conversation such as Mr. Thomas and I entered into would be that he would change his mind, or that I would change mine."

(Only if you could "read my mind" would you know that I think "...the only legitimate premise for a conversation such as Mr. Thomas and I entered into would be that he would change his mind...)

I was willing to credit you with not contradicting yourself in writing. I'm sorry, but not surprised, to see I was wrong.