Emeraldlady
New member
We must not be reading the same open letter because Cdl Ouellet states times and places to debunk Vigano’s accusations.
As above.
Last edited:
- Status
V
Viaetveritasetvita
Guest
I have read the letter and I think you are Mistaken to what Maximian meant.
Benedicat Te Omnipotens Deus
“While actually confirming the facts he had alleged”. That is no debunking. There is a plethora of information backing up Viganò’s accusations.
Benedicat Te Omnipotens Deus
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Emeraldlady
New member
It means very little to know the letter of the law but not to understand the spirit. 1 Corinthians 13 reminds us that if one who speaks with the tongues of mortals angels, prophesy and understand the mysteries of knowledge, isn’t filled with the fruits of love, they are just a clanging gong etc.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
In all charity, whether it be Dr. Marshall or anybody else one would be talking about, how do we know, without knowing that someone personally, if they are filled with the fruits of love. As I have said before, we can judge an action, whether it be right or wrong, but we can not judge another person’s heart. That is reserved for God alone.
for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
I find this a baffling post considering that you yourself in 2 different posts on this thread have condemned others on the thread of evil. #242 and #244. . . .Emeraldlady:
In all charity, whether it be Dr. Marshall or anybody else one would be talking about, how do we know, without knowing that someone personally, if they are filled with the fruits of love. As I have said before, we can judge an action, whether it be right or wrong, but we can not judge another person’s heart. That is reserved for God alone.
for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7
Last edited by a moderator:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Hi Emeraldlady,
I do think there are some issues here in this thread but I didn’t nor would I even try to figure out another person’s heart nor the reasons why they are making the comments they make, nor even condemn them. In 244 I didn’t know what mary and johnny meant. That was just a question. Nothing more. I had never heard it before and graceview explained it and that was all that happened there.
In 242 I again was speaking about an issue or a comment that came through in the thread earlier, not reading someone’s heart whether or not they had fruits of love. It was just a very rude comment that the moderators removed but I didn’t say anything about them not having love. You also might notice I apologized to who I was speaking to if my post sounded that way at all.
God bless
Emeraldlady
New member
The objective consensus recognises Vigano’s agenda and the spin motivated by personal animus.I have read the letter and I think you are Mistaken to what Maximian meant.
Maximian:
“While actually confirming the facts he had alleged”. That is no debunking. There is a plethora of information backing up Viganò’s accusations.
Benedicat Te Omnipotens Deus
One longtime Vatican watcher and scholar of the Catholic Church says the open attack on Pope Francis — coming at an especially vulnerable time for him — appears to be mostly about personal animus and the Pope’s move to make the Church more accepting of gays. The Pope’s defenders have already started to dispute details in Vigano’s letter.
Emeraldlady
New member
I’m not sure which posts you are looking at. You can find the post number by left clicking the date or time stamp in the top right corner of a post.
#242 “As we have seen by some of the strong evil, attacking posts, that were deleted thankfully though remnants remain,”
#244 “As I said above there are evil things and mean threads said here at CAF also”
The point is that fine you like to characterize others words as evil but you can’t in good conscience come down on others for doing the same.
#242 “As we have seen by some of the strong evil, attacking posts, that were deleted thankfully though remnants remain,”
#244 “As I said above there are evil things and mean threads said here at CAF also”
The point is that fine you like to characterize others words as evil but you can’t in good conscience come down on others for doing the same.
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
Are you able to accurately judge his spirit? I can tell you that personally he has inspired me greatly to dive deeper into the faith, pray more and to share my faith more openly with others.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
As I said there were a couple of posts, one in particular that said some pretty mean things. I do not know the person, I was only commenting on the post and that at times there are posts here that can be mean also. Again, not commenting on the person.
I believe we can say there are things we do not like or disasgree with that Mr. Marshall or anyone else says or whether we think what a particular action of theirs is right or wrong but I would not want to say someone has no fruits of love. That is looking at motivations and that means someone’s heart and we can’t see inside someone’s heart. That is all I am saying.
This debate here is off topic of the thread and fruitless in itself to continue, so I will say God bless again and wish you a good rest of your day.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Objective consensus? One anonymous Vatican Watcher quoted in time Magazine who is accusing a bishop of “personal animus?”
How to determine the truth of the accusation, let alone the objectivity of the individual who is making it. What is the basis for establishing this objectivity?
Last edited:
V
Viaetveritasetvita
Guest
Pulling out an article with opinions by a Church historian is not an “objective consensus”. This is a man who has blamed the victims of sexual abuse by priests as being partly responsible for the horrors that were perpetrated against them. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Emeraldlady
New member
I checked your join date which is 2012 so if you were following along the religious forums and media at the time of Vigano’s condemnation of Pope Francis and call for his resignation, you well know that Vigano’s anti Francis activities in collusion with the conservative culture club, are recorded for public consumption. All those actions show a concerted, consistent attack on Pope Francis and his papacy, with plotting, spin doctoring and drama to feed a public war. Come on now.Emeraldlady:
Objective consensus? One anonymous Vatican Watcher quoted in time Magazine who is accusing a bishop of “personal animus?”
How to determine the truth of the accusation, let alone the objectivity of the individual who is making it. What is the basis for establishing this objectivity?
Emeraldlady
New member
I didn’t judge his spirit. I commented that someone can know the letter of the law but not understand the spirit of the law. When I was catechising my children as youngsters, I used discernment to guide them regarding people claiming to be Catholic but promoting anti Catholic ideology. Politicians, teachers, media personalities etc. They are grown now but I find my urgency is warning them against this modernist type calling themselves traditionalist but openly and without a lick of prudence, undermining the authority of the Pope and condemning the ordinary form of the Mass and ironically calling all of us normal life long Catholics the ‘modernists’. It’s a terrible modernist scourge. They don’t even think about the souls they are bringing into the Church as combatants against the real tradition. I don’t know your perspective or positions but if Taylor Marshall has influenced you to have those attitudes, I’d ask you to step away and examine those things.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
If an argument is going to be made on the thread, it should be backed up by more than “you should know”.
the documentation already offered does not seem to align well, either with the suggestion that is a consensus or with the suggestion that it is objective.
the documentation already offered does not seem to align well, either with the suggestion that is a consensus or with the suggestion that it is objective.
C
commenter
Guest
How would someone know that?
Traditionally Catholics rely on the current Magisterium to guide us in authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.
Many Protestants emphasize Tradition, but obviously reject the Magisterium as authentic interpreter of it. Unfortunately this leads them into contradictory interpretations of Tradition. Protestants don’t submit books for Imprimatur, as Fulton Sheen did, nor do they maintain a relationship between their media organization and the local Ordinary (like EWTN).
Neither does Dr. Marshall’s media ministry. Some of his interpretation of Tradition may happen to coincide with that of the Catholic Church - so would much of a Lutheran publisher - but there’s no assurance, in either case.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
The same way you would know whether or not what you hear fom anyone (unfortunately even priests and Catholic instructors of many kinds) is rooted in Catholic Doctrine, Dogma and Tradition, fact check. Read and study Chuch teachings and catechisms and the saints. I sponsored someone in RCIA once and remember the sister teaching the class said Catholics no longer need to read or study the catechism. That was bothersome.
It is true we do rely on the current Magisterrium to guide us, but we do not want to leave behind what has been taught to us from the time of the apostles and it is our responsibility to study the faith ourselves and even our Catholic saints of the past.
Again this is also true. Protestants have a different way of looking at things but that would be a different topic since we are discussing Catholics.
I have not read Dr. Marshall’s book and you are right he does not have an Imprimatur but he does have a forward from a bishop in very good standing with the Church who also has an excellent book out that speaks similarly of the crisis happening in the Chuch today. Christus Vincit.
An Imprimatur in a book only means that according to the person examining the book it can be printed. It is not an infallible statement, it is not coming from the Pope or all the bishops. It is usually from a Censor Librorum (cleric) that the bishop trusts to examine the book, so many times it isn’t from the bishop specifically.
As far as vidoes and podcasts and blogs, they are constantly changing and growing in number so it would be very difficult for the Church to give any kind of approval or Imprimatur for what is happening on the internet. We tend to focus here a lot on Dr. Marshall but there are a lot of Catholic youtubes and blogs out there.
Speaking of EWTN, (as per a post in this thread) some see EWTN as an enemy of the Chuch. I do not, I like EWTN very, very much but Mother Angelica herself spoke out frequently of what she saw was a crisis in the Church.
I guess bottom line is pray and ask God to lead you and make sure that what you hear and understand is Catholic truth.
Many times it is not what we hear that upsets us but the messenger or how the messenger presents it. My suggestion is if you don’t like the way one person discusses the crisis in the Church try listening to another person.
If we didn’t think there was a crisis or problems in the Church we would be denying what Christ said when He said, if the world hates me they will hate you.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Hi David,
I can’t figure out the acronym. Could you give a quick explanation for CCEO?
Thanks and may God bless you.
jt
I can’t figure out the acronym. Could you give a quick explanation for CCEO?
Thanks and may God bless you.
jt
C
commenter
Guest
Ok. I doubt if many readers go through the Catechism, the source documents, for all his statements. But even if they did, his facts surely check out, but the vast majority of Catholics don’t know the context, they don’t know the other equally relevant, or more pertinent facts he skipped over to show you his chosen particular facts, or opinions.
“Catholics for Choice” is another website ministry unapproved by the Church. They also show lots of facts from Catholic Tradition and documents to “prove” legal abortion is consistent with Catholic social teaching. Don’t say this is obviously a fraud, because millions of Catholics and non Catholics accept this line of thinking. I’m sure their facts check out, but they are not reliable.
I’m not equating Dr Marshall with
that "Catholic Apostolate’, just pointing out where unapproved “Catholic” ministry can lead to. I could also cite fundamentalist “Catholic” literature, that cite facts that check out, but the uninformed Catholic doesn’t know what other facts they omitted. (You would know).
When Dr Marshall cites part of Pascendi as an important authoritative document how many of his readers look up sections 50 - 53 which he would never cite? Likely none.
Last edited:
- Status