Pages

Our Motto:

The Connecticut Catholic Corner Motto: Romans 14:16 "Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil."

All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner

© 2007-2024 All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner *except EWTN press releases(see sidebar)*

***FYI: Comments***

Due to continued problems with Disqus I have removed them from this blog- in doing so comments from 2018-2020 have disappeared from my blog posts.
Showing posts with label confusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confusion. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Holy Communion for Polygamists?

Pope Francis' excellent job of causing a "mess" in the Church continues with chaos in the African communities where polygamy is a troublesome issue in the culture. 

Cardinal Napier, Archbishop of Durban, South Africa recently tweeted



Before Pope Francis this was not a question. With Francis as pope everything seems to be questionable - because of course, who are we to judge?

Before Pope Francis we had: 
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFULVatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[quote in part] "In some places it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision in conscience to approach holy communion, without this implying an official authorization.
In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.
Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few fathers of the church and in some measure were practiced nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal magisterium, in fidelity to sacred Scripture and tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the <depositum fidei>.
With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the church affirms that a new union cannot be recognized as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive holy communion as long as this situation persists.
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.[end quote]
Jesus and our Church have always been very clear on this subject. 

Catholic Catechism: 
1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

With Francis as pope, suddenly it is a question because chaos and confusion is the new normal in our Church. 

Quote from CatholicCitizens.org

"For the African Church, this is a pressing issue. For example, in 2004 it was reported that nearly half of marriages in Senegal are polygamous. I know from my own former ministry in Kenya that polygamy is not at all unknown among Catholics. People in that sort of situation might well think that the admission of those in irregular second unions throws them some sort of lifeline.
Four Cardinals, as we know, have submitted five dubia to the Pope on the matter of the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Virtually every priest who has ever worked in Africa could submit a dubium on this matter too, namely, to quote Cardinal Napier: “If Westerners in irregular [marital] situations can receive Communion, are we to tell our polygamists and other ‘misfits’ that they too are allowed?”
If polygamists were ever admitted to Holy Communion for whatever reason, it would undo a century of work by the missionaries who have consistently taught that marriage is an exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, and can only be dissolved by death. It would also severely damage the credibility of the Church, and undermine the authority of Scripture. Dubium means doubt, but on this matter there can be no doubt. We cannot admit polygamists to Holy Communion, whether serial ones of concurrent ones, whether Westerners or from other continents." [end quote] 

Who knew back in 2013 when the Holy Father said...
"I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!" he said, speaking off the cuff in his native Spanish. "I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!"
...that we would be petitioning our Holy Father to clarify Holy Communion for adulterers and fornicators? 




Well Pope Francis, you have succeeded...you have given us a mess, disorder and trouble in dioceses around the world. 

I am sure your father is proud of your unholy accomplishments.

Well done, loyal servant to the devil, well done. 



In Christ, 

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 



Links: 

https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/816969704489308160

http://catholiccitizens.org/news/69452/african-cardinal-asks-good-question-communion-polygamists/

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDIVOR.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130725/lt-brazil-pope/?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=world




Saturday, May 14, 2016

Women deacons?

The Pope is once again causing confusion... HERE.

*sigh* 

From the Vatican website: 

IV. The Ministry of Deaconesses

In the apostolic era different forms of diaconal assistance offered to the Apostles and communities by women seem to have been institutional. Thus Paul recommends to the community at Rome "our sister Phoebe, servant [he diakonos] of the Church at Cenchreae" (cf. Rom 16:1-4). Although the masculine form of diakonos is used here, it cannot therefore be concluded that the word is being used to designate the specific function of a "deacon"; firstly because in this context diakonos still signifies servant in a very general sense, and secondly because the word "servant" is not given a feminine suffix but preceded by a feminine article. What seems clear is that Phoebe exercised a recognised service in the community of Cenchreae, subordinate to the ministry of the Apostle. Elsewhere in Pauls writings the authorities of the world are themselves called diakonos (Rom 13:4), and in Second Corinthians 11:14-15 he refers to diakonoi of the devil.
Exegetes are divided on the subject of First Timothy 3:11. The mention of "women" following the reference to deacons may suggest women deacons (by parallel reference), or the deacons' wives who had been mentioned earlier. In this epistle, the functions of the deacon are not described, but only the conditions for admitting them. It is said that women must not teach or rule over men (1 Tim 2:8-15). But the functions of governance and teaching were in any case reserved to the bishop (1 Tim 3:5) and to priests (1 Tim 5:17), and not to deacons. Widows constituted a recognised group in the community, from whom they received assistance in exchange for their commitment to continence and prayer. First Timothy 5:3-16 stresses the conditions under which they may be inscribed on the list of widows receiving relief from the community, and says nothing more about any functions they might have. Later on they were officially "instituted" but "not ordained";58 they constituted an "order" in the Church,59 and would never have any other mission apart from good example and prayer.
At the beginning of the second century a letter from Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, mentioned two women who were described by the Christians as ministrae, the probable equivalent of the Greek diakonoi (10, 96-97). It was not until the third century that the specific Christian termsdiaconissa or diacona appeared.
From the end of the third century onwards, in certain regions of the Church60 (and not all of them), a specific ecclesial ministry is attested to on the part of women called deaconesses.61 This was in Eastern Syria and Constantinople. Towards 240 there appeared a singular canonico-liturgical compilation, the Didascalia Apostolorum (DA), which was not official in character. It attributed to the bishop the features of an omnipotent biblical patriarch (cf. DA 2, 33-35, 3). He was at the head of a little community which he governed mainly with the help of deacons and deaconesses. This was the first time that deaconesses appeared in an ecclesiastical document. In a typology borrowed from Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop held the place of God the Father, the deacon the place of Christ, and the deaconess that of the Holy Spirit (the word for "Spirit" is feminine in Semitic languages), while the priests (who are seldom mentioned) represented the Apostles, and the widows, the altar (DA 2, 26, 4-7). There is no reference to the ordination of these ministers.
The Didascalia laid stress on the charitable role of the deacon and the deaconess. The ministry of the diaconate should appear as "one single soul in two bodies". Its model is the diakonia of Christ, who washed the feet of his disciples (DA 3, 13, 1-7). However, there was no strict parallelism between the two branches of the diaconate with regard to the functions they exercised. The deacons were chosen by the bishop to "concern themselves about many necessary things", and the deaconesses only "for the service of women" (DA 3, 12, 1). The hope was expressed that "the number of deacons may be proportionate to that of the assembly of the people of the Church" (DA 3, 13, l).62 The deacons administered the property of the community in the bishop's name. Like the bishop, they were maintained at its expense. Deacons are called the ear and mouth of the bishop (DA 2, 44, 3-4). Men from among the faithful should go through the deacons to have access to the bishop, as women should go through the deaconesses (DA 3, 12, 1-4). One deacon supervised the entries into the meeting place, while another attended the bishop for the Eucharistic offering (DA 2, 57, 6).
Deaconesses should carry out the anointing of women in the rite of baptism, instruct women neophytes, and visit the women faithful, especially the sick, in their homes. They were forbidden to confer baptism themselves, or to play a part in the Eucharistic offering (DA 3, 12, 1-4). The deaconesses had supplanted the widows. The bishop may still institute widows, but they should not either teach or administer baptism (to women), but only pray (DA 3, 5, 1-3, 6, 2).
The Constitutiones Apostolorum, which appeared in Syria towards 380, used and interpolated the Didascalia, the Didache and the Traditio Apostolica. The Constitutiones were to have a lasting influence on the discipline governing ordinations in the East, even though they were never considered to be an official canonical collection. The compiler envisaged the imposition of hands with the epiklesis of the Holy Spirit not only for bishops, priests and deacons, but also for the deaconesses, sub-deacons and lectors (cf. CA 8, 16-23).63The concept of kleros Was broadened to all those who exercised a liturgical ministry, who were maintained by the Church, and who benefited from the privileges in civil law allowed by the Empire to clerics, so that the deaconesses were counted as belonging to the clergy while the widows were excluded. Bishop and priests were paralleled with the high priest and the priests respectively of the Old Covenant, while to the Levites corresponded all the other ministries and states of life: "deacons, lectors, cantors, door-keepers, deaconesses, widows, virgins and orphans" (CA 2, 26, 3; CA 8, 1, 21). The deacon was placed "at the service of the bishop and the priests" and should not impinge on the functions of the latter.64 The deacon could proclaim the Gospel and conduct the prayer of the assembly (CA 2, 57, 18), but only the bishop and the priests exhorted (CA 2, 57, 7). Deaconesses took up their functions through an epithesis cheirôn or imposition of hands that conferred the Holy Spirit,65 as did the lectors (CA 8, 20, 22). The bishop pronounced the following prayer: "Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, creator of man and woman, who filled Myriam, Deborah, Anne and Hulda with your spirit; who did not deem it unworthy for your Son, the Only-Begotten, to be born of a woman; who in the tent of witness and in the temple did institute women as guardians of your sacred doors, look now upon your servant before you, proposed for the diaconate: grant her the Holy Spirit and purify her of all defilement of flesh and spirit so that she may acquit herself worthily of the office which has been entrusted to her, for your glory and to the praise of your Christ, through whom be glory and adoration to you, in the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen."66
The deaconesses were named before the sub-deacon who, in his turn, received a cheirotonia like the deacon (CA 8, 21), while the virgins and widows could not be "ordained" (8, 24-25). The Constitutiones insist that the deaconesses should have no liturgical function (3, 9, 1-2), but should devote themselves to their function in the community which was "service to the women" (CA 3, 16, 1) and as intermediaries between women and the bishop. It is still stated that they represent the Holy Spirit, but they "do nothing without the deacon" (CA 2, 26, 6). They should stand at the women's entrances in the assemblies (2, 57, 10). Their functions are summed up as follows: "The deaconess does not bless, and she does not fulfil any of the things that priests and deacons do, but she looks after the doors and attends the priests during the baptism of women, for the sake of decency" (CA 8, 28, 6).
This is echoed by the almost contemporary observation of Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion, in around 375: "There is certainly in the Church the order of deaconesses, but this does not exist to exercise the functions of a priest, nor are they to have any undertaking committed to them, but for the decency of the feminine sex at the time of baptism." 67A law of Theodosius of 21 June 390, revoked on 23 August of the same year, fixed the age for admission to the ministry of deaconesses at 60. The Council of Chalcedon (can. 15) reduced the age to 40, forbidding them subsequent marriage.68
Even in the fourth century the way of life of deaconesses was very similar to that of nuns. At that time the woman in charge of a monastic community of women was called a deaconess, as is testified by Gregory of Nyssa among others.69 Ordained abbesses of the monasteries of women, the deaconesses wore the maforion, or veil of perfection. Until the sixth century they still attended women in the baptismal pool and for the anointing. Although they did not serve at the altar, they could distribute communion to sick women. When the practice of anointing the whole body at baptism was abandoned, deaconesses were simply consecrated virgins who had taken the vow of chastity. They lived either in monasteries or at home. The condition for admission was virginity or widowhood and their activity consisted of charitable and health-related assistance to women.
At Constantinople the best-known of the fourth-century deaconesses was Olympias, the superior of a monastery of women, who was a protegee of Saint John Chrysostom and had put her property at the service of the Church. She was "ordained" (cheirotonein) deaconess with three of her companions by the patriarch. Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm the fact that deaconesses really were "ordained" by the imposition of hands (cheirotonia). Their ministry was called leitourgia and after ordination they were not allowed to marry.
In eighth-century Byzantium, the bishop still imposed his hands on a deaconess, and conferred on her the orarion or stole (both ends of which were worn at the front, one over the other); he gave her the chalice, which she placed on the altar without giving communion to anyone. Deaconesses were ordained in the course of the Eucharistic liturgy, in the sanctuary, like deacons.70 Despite the similarities between the rites of ordination, deaconesses did not have access to the altar or to any liturgical ministry. These ordinations were intended mainly for the superiors of monasteries of women.
It should be pointed out that in the West there is no trace of any deaconesses for the first five centuries. The Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua laid down that the instruction of women catechumens and their preparation for baptism was to be entrusted to the widows and women religious "chosenad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum".71 Certain councils of the fourth and fifth centuries reject every ministerium feminae72 and forbid any ordination of deaconesses.73 According to the Ambrosiaster (composed at Rome at the end of the fourth century), the female diaconate was an adjunct of Montanist ("Cataphrygian") heretics.74 In the sixth century women admitted into the group of widows were sometimes referred to as deaconesses. To prevent any confusion the Council of Epaone forbade "the consecrations of widows who call themselves deaconesses".75 The Second Council of Orleans (533) decided to exclude from communion women who had "received the blessing for the diaconate despite the canons forbidding this and who had remarried".76 Abbesses, or the wives of deacons, were also called diaconissae, by analogy with presbyterissae or even episcopissae.77
The present historical overview shows that a ministry of deaconesses did indeed exist, and that this developed unevenly in the different parts of the Church. It seems clear that this ministry was not perceived as simply the feminine equivalent of the masculine diaconate. At the very least it was an ecclesial function, exercised by women, sometimes mentioned together with that of sub-deacon in the lists of Church ministries.78 Was this ministry conferred by an imposition of hands comparable to that by which the episcopate, the priesthood and the masculine diaconate were conferred? The text of the Constitutiones Apostolorum would seem to suggest this, but it is practically the only witness to this, and its proper interpretation is the subject of much debate.79 Should the imposition of hands on deaconesses be considered the same as that on deacons, or is it rather on the same level as the imposition of hands on sub-deacons and lectors? It is difficult to tackle the question on the basis of historical data alone. In the following chapters some elements will be clarified, and some questions will remain open. In particular, one chapter will be devoted to examining more closely how the Church through her theology and Magisterium has become more conscious of the sacramental reality of Holy Orders and its three grades. But first it is appropriate to examine the causes which led to the disappearance of the permanent diaconate in the life of the Church. [end quote] 




No need for the Pope to tell the world he is going to get a commission together to look into this already looked into and defined subject. He is only causing confusion and discord once again. 


God save us from Pope Francis. 


In Christ, 


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 






Friday, June 12, 2015

Are there any rules left?

If so, who writes them?

Bruce Jenner was born a male and is now a woman named Caitlyn.

Chastity Sun Bono was born female and is now a man named Chaz.

Rachel Dolezal was born a white female and now is a black woman.

Michael Jackson... never mind that one.

Elizabeth Warren was not born a minority female and now is a minority Native American.

Marriage was a given... 1 man + 1 woman=marriage.

Now gender and race and marriage are whatever anyone wants it to be.

Who decided that?

By what authority does anyone get to redefine falsehoods as 'truths'?

Does 4+4 suddenly now equal 10?  Why not?  Can I change that if I want to?

Can a teacher tell me I am wrong if I want 4+4 to equal 10?  Would it be a form of numerophobia making them numerophobic if they told me 4+4 will never equal 10?  Would that constitute hate speech?

Who decides?  And how did they get that authority?
Is there a handbook for this stuff?  Whose the author and why are we all listening to him/her/it?

Praise God I am a practicing Roman Catholic who knows what authority the earth and all on it are subject to.

Too bad the mental cases have taken over not just the institution, but our entire society.  For a moment, just imagine what society 100 and 200+ years ago would think if they could have seen what the future would bring...I'm guessing far more celibacy.


In Christ,


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner





Thursday, July 17, 2014

We have a pope problem and we can't ignore it.

By Connecticut Catholic Corner


"According to their knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess, [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at the times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful"- Canon Law 212 Section 3 


About once a year I find myself in opposition to something Michael Voris says (most of the time I think he is spot on and an excellent teacher of the Faith - I highly recommend watching his 'Talks' videos).

Sadly today is one of those rare occasions when I disagree with Michael Voris.

God love you Michael Voris for trying to be the calm in the chaos of Pope Francis’ wake yet again, but I think you’ve got it wrong- at least partly wrong.

Today Voris put out an episode of the Vortex telling Catholics to ‘take a chill pill’ and wait a few days each time Pope Francis opens his mouth so that the Vatican has time to come out with numerous statements clarifying what the Pope MEANT to say.




Got that?  

Don’t listen to what the Pope says; only pay attention to what the Vatican tells you Pope Francis MEANT to say.

That is the SAD reality of our Catholic Church today.  We've got a pope problem and the only answer some are giving is 'ignore him'.  

For months, especially this last week, Catholic writers and bloggers (some of them priests) have been suggesting Catholics “IGNORE THE POPE” because he's causing chaos and division within the Church.  And now it seems Michael Voris is telling us the same thing, but for a different reason.

Voris quote: "Did you hear the reports saying the Pope said God doesn’t REALLY exist? Or did you see the headline that said the Pope said all that matters is overthrowing world economic markets?
Those might as well be the headlines, because they are just about as valid as any of the stuff being trotted out under the banner “WHAT THE POPE SAID TODAY”.Really, this nonsense has got to stop. From Rome on down to the Catholic blogasterium, to the secular press to Catholics on Facebook and so forth.This pope has an off-handed way of talking. Ok. Does he guard his every word and consider that he should be much more circumspect in what he says and to whom? It’s clear its not his style. No, he doesn’t do that.He talks a lot – and that’s who he is. And he has perhaps in little more than a year, become the most ill-quoted and misrepresented Pope in the history of the Church.Does he need to stop talking to so many people in such an off-handed fashion. That argument could be made somewhat easily. But face it, he aint gonna do that.So, Catholics around the world need to stop going crazy and just ignore much of this reporting until a few days have gone by after a reported strange comment."-end quote-  
             
Voris says “ignore much of this REPORTING” – what about the actual INTERVIEWS that the Vatican puts on and off and on (again) its website over and over again?  Do we ignore those too?

The issue for me, isn't what the media says, its what the pope ACTUALLY says..."who am I to judge"..."make a mess"...‘The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old".  And what about what he's done?  Washing women's (and Muslims) feet during Holy Week?  I KNOW Voris objects to that (because its WRONG), he's voiced his disapproval for priests who wash women's feet numerous times. These things are a problem, and this problem will not go away by ignoring it.

Many Catholics (bloggers, Facebook, Twitter or other social media junkies etc) are voicing their confusion because we WANT someone to tell us ‘it ain’t so!” but most of the time the Vatican can’t even do that because these ‘interviews’ are done with no proof of what was actually said.

So we either call the person doing the interview a liar (maybe they are, we don’t know) or we point out the fact that the Pope continues to put HIMSELF in a position to BE confusing.

When the pope does that, Catholics (on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc) should NOT be blamed for freaking out.  It's not our fault this stuff comes out of his mouth constantly causing us to feel confused and disappointed and quite frankly nervous.


Voris says:  What’s the moral of the story. Forget the headlines, forget the blogs by the Church of Nice crowd, forget the knee jerk stupidity and just chill out and wait for the ACTUAL facts, or correct translation, or appropriate clarification to be issued.

I am really surprised at Voris for basically stating that Catholics should ignore everything that comes out of the pope’s mouth because only the Vatican can correctly interpret the Holy Father.  That the laity must sit back and wait for the Vatican to tell us what the pope means. 

Really Michael?  Is that where we are now?  Am I misunderstanding Voris here?

I understand the other Catholic bloggers who say 'ignore the pope because he's not THE FAITH and he can't change dogma so why worry', but I don't understand being told to ignore the pope because we must wait for the Vatican tell us what the pope MEANT to say.

Has this ever before happened in our Church history?  That a pope could not speak for himself because no one but the Vatican could understand him?

The problem is, ignoring the head of the Holy Catholic Church is NOT easy- especially when he scares you.  

And let’s be honest here, Pope Francis scares/worries a LOT of people.

I don’t know Michael Voris personally, but have followed his web shows for years now and watched more of his Youtube Catholic teaching videos than I can count.

But to be honest, I get the feeling from listening to Voris for so many years that he isn’t any happier with the current pope than most of the rest of us. (I say this because I recently listened to a talk he gave called “Satan’s Defeat” (excellent by the way) which took place after Pope Benedict resigned, in which Voris was asked who he wished would be our next pope and Voris said Cardinal Raymond Burke whom he wished would take the name Pope Leo XIV- clear indicator he was wishing for a very orthodox, straight talking, no confusion holy pope-like many of us). (note Voris' comment is the final few seconds of the video)

Voris has made it perfectly clear he will not publicly criticize a sitting pope, but that doesn’t automatically mean he’s any happier about what is happening than the rest of us.

He tells us not to have a 'knee jerk' reaction to the pope, but if I were a betting person I would bet Voris has had his own knee jerk moments because of the pope- he just refuses to do so publicly.  

I get a visual of Voris doing a face plant each time Pope Francis does an “interview/non-interview” as the tsunami of chaos ripples over the world.  Once he prays and calms down he has to get to work figuring out how he’s going to steer through the latest storm the Holy Father has unleashed on the world with his next Vortex episode. I admire him for trying and respect him tremendously for NOT going against his view that publicly criticizing a pope is wrong.

Where I disagree with Voris this time, is in laying the blame on the laity and even the media for freaking out when we hear or read what the Holy Father has said.  If this was JUST that the media was at fault for taking something out of context (like with Pope Benedict and the “condom” incident) Voris would have a point.  But the issue is Pope Francis himself- he's purposely putting himself CONTINUALLY in the position to cause chaos.

There are NO MORE excuses for Pope Francis on this- at least in MY opinion.

Pope Francis gives the first interview and chaos erupts.  The interview was on the Vatican website, then taken down from the Vatican website and yesterday it’s back up on the Vatican website and then taken down TODAY- again.

Chaos and confusion.

The Pope does a second interview and the world goes into a tailspin over it.  The Vatican (as Voris points out) has to AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN come out with statements to calm the Catholic world by telling us basically NOT to listen to anything Pope Francis says, just wait for the Vatican to tell you all what he actually MEANT to say.

And last week Pope Francis has done it again.

More chaos and confusion.

Voris puts a lot of the blame on Catholics for freaking out and the media for misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Pope.

Well WHEN is the Pope going to be responsible for what HE says and does?

Why is everyone else getting blamed for what HE says?  What he’s said at times IS scary.  We have a legitimate reason for our unease with this Pope.

Pope Francis said he wanted "a mess" and he's doing a fantastic job of creating a mess in the Church.  


Are we in for YEARS of one mess after another?   
                                                             
This "mess" is on the Pope, not the laity.

If he cared about the confusion and chaos suffered (and it is suffering) by the Catholic laity he would STOP doing these interview/non-interviews, but apparently he’s MORE concerned with his own pleasure in being interviewed, rather than what is best for the Church.

He’s got a priority problem.

And we the Church have a pope problem. 

Some people don’t want to say what needs saying, but it’s the truth.  We have a pope problem.  

It’s an easy fix, just STOP giving off the cuff interviews/non-interviews.  Stick to pre-written statements that the Vatican has looked over to make sure there will be NO chaos or confusion. That way we won't have to wait days for the Vatican to explain what the pope MEANT rather than what he said.

Sadly, I don't think Pope Francis will change for the good of the Church.  He wants a 'mess' and he's determined to continue making a mess within the Church.  

That's a problem we can't ignore.

I pray someone at the Vatican will fix it and be able to clean up Pope Francis' mess.

God help us and give us clarity where we have a mess of chaos and confusion.


In Christ,


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner


"Is the hierarchy perhaps free to teach what they find most to their liking on matters of religion, or what they expect will be most pleasing to the proponents of certain current views opposed to all doctrine? Certainly not! The prime duty of the episcopate is to transmit strictly and faithfully the original message of Christ, the sum total of the truths which He revealed and confided to the Apostles as necessary for salvation." -Pope Paul VI

"The sacred deposit of truth must be safeguarded. It is absolutely vital that the Church never for an instant lose sight of the holy patrimony of truth inherited from the Fathers ... This is the certain and unchangeable doctrine to which the faithful owe obedience." -Pope John XXIII 




Voris’ wish for next pope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6FIQOdD024 (see the last 3 seconds of the video; it’s his final comment at the end of the talk).


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...