Posted on 08/31/2014 6:59:37 PM PDT by ebb tide
Again, see #28, 127 posts ago!
To paraphrase Pope Francis, "We don't need no stinkin' miracles"!
I can absolutely assure you that the Tridentine wedding Mass had nothing whatever to do with the unlamented Marcel or his pretensions of grandeur. It took place in the Hartford Archdiocese through the personal intervention of Archbishop John Whealon because he TRUSTED the motives of the couple and the priest and others associated with the request NOT to be reflective of the rebellious nonsense of Marcel. Archbishop Whealon figuratively boxed the ears of archdiocesan officials who had dug in their heels in resistance to a Tridentine wedding.
Saint John Paul II in Quattuor Abhinc Annos (1984) and Ecclesia Dei (1988) bears the responsibility for and honor of granting the permission to resume Tridentine Masses. Then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, is at his side as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He also signed off on the excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre.
The Tridentine Mass returned IN SPITE OF and NOT BECAUSE OF the incipient rebellion of Marcel formalized on 7/1/88. On 7/2/88, twelve SSPX priests formed the FSSP and got out from under the schism and that is what attendees at FSSP Masses can thank Marcel for and absolutely nothing more.
OTOH, unless you claim ignorance of Karol Wojtyla aka Saint John Paul II...... He was around for quite a while and his efforts were covered in most of the newspapers even the schismatic ones.
Not agitprop; merely logical conclusions based on the timeline and the various actions and writings of those involved.
Ecclesia Dei was issued in response to Lefebvre's consecrations. JPII bears "the responsibility for and the honor of" helping to squash the availability of the Tridentine Mass in favor of the Protestantized Novus Order liturgy. He considered adherents of the Tridentine Mass a "problem" needing to be solved. E.g.: "The result of the consultation was sent to all the bishops. On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called "Tridentine" rite was almost completely solved." - QUATTUOR ABHINC ANNOS). Lefebvre, on the other hand, acted to preserve the Tridentine Mass for the Church against the ravages of the reformers. And it was Benedict XVI who issued Summorum Pontificum, freeing the Tridentine Mass from JPII's restrictive indult system and pointing out that the Mass was never abrogated.
Your wedding story underscores the tremendous injustice inflicted upon Catholics by the liberal reformers (including Pope JPII). Although the Mass was never abrogated, you said that your Archbishop had to figuratively box ears to allow your nuptial Mass, and you had to essentially prove that your motives could be trusted in order to receive permission for a Tridentine Nuptial Mass. You were apparently the fortunate recipient of an exception to the general rule in your diocese. Those less fortunate Catholics who lacked access to the bishop and were denied a Tridentine Nuptial Mass because of the restrictions imposed by JPII on the use of the rite apparently don't figure into the rose-colored picture you have painted.
Would it fall into the category created by that new term invented by Voris and co. in reference to the offerings of trad writers?
If God wanted Marcel to be elected pope, Marcel would have been elected pope. Ditto Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the leaders of Arianism, Donatism, and Albigensianism. That you have lived in the time of Marcel's rebellion does not sanitize his rebellion or make his grave disobedience and massacre of his vow of clerical obedience one bit less schismatic than Saint JP II declared on 7/2/88, in Ecclesia Dei, two days after Marcel and de Castro Meyer pulled their consecration of Fellay, Williamson, deMallerais and Gallerata without permission of the Holy See and in direct disobedience to the orders of Saint JP II.
The "logical conclusion" to be drawn from Ecclesia Dei and the associated timeline, was that SSPX was declared a schism, that Marcel, de Castro Meyer, Fellay, Williamson (himself such an embarrassment as to be later banished by the "authorities" of SSPX), de Mallerais, and Gallerata were each and every one EXCOMMUNICATED, that further adherence to SSPX by anyone (including you) was to be regarded as an excommunicating offense and that the faithful were to cease encouraging the schism in any way.
That Pope Benedict XVI, exercising the same pontifical authority which he enjoyed upon succeeding Saint JP II, extended to the miscreant SSPX bishops still living, all but Marcel and de Castro Meyer, an undeserved mercy and charity and lifted their excommunications and, in spite of their continued rebellion against even Benedict XVI, presuming to dictate terms for their restoration to obedience owed to the Supreme Pontiff. As of this writing, they are STILL not submitting to papal authority. The declaration of schism contained in Ecclesia Dei has NEVER been lifted nor IMNSHO should it be.
The foregoing is what the timeline and documents reveal, whatever it may thrill the schismatics to hallucinate notwithstanding.
The Novus Ordo liturgy may be a relentlessly low rent liturgy but is certainly a Catholic liturgy and may be reverently said as should be the case in all instances. Personally, I prefer the full restoration of the Tridentine Mass and it would be a lot more easily accomplished without the power struggle waged by the schismatics against legitimate Church authority. Just as the papacy had the authority in the time of Trent and Pope St. Pius V to make the Tridentine Mass the normative Mass of the Church, so Paul VI, for good or for ill, had the same authority to establish the Novus Ordo Mass as normative. Don't like it? Become pope and issue your own decree.
Maybe my wife and I were able to have a Tridentine wedding Mass through the direct intervention of Archbishop John Whealon because we approached the matter with respect for the archbishop, specifically making our request in writing months in advance of the wedding and clearly stating that, whatever his decision, we would comply with respect for his office and for his understanding of his own responsibilities after fifteen years as our archbishop.
We might have chosen instead to be bulls in a china shop, yapping about our "rights" vis-a-vis the archbishop (and the vis-a-vis the pope for that matter) and be given a choice of novus ordo or justice of the peace.
You may disagree with our choice but that is how we were able to be the first couple known (according to the Wanderer) to have been married in the Tridentine rite in a church in full communion with diocese and papacy since the post-Vatican II disruption. As a side note, the Church in question had, since the 1880s to the post-Vatican II controversy, normally provided Mass only in the Ambrosian rite.
The exercise of papal authority over the actually Catholic (i.e., non-schismatic) flock is not injustice. It is not for the malcontents in the pews to decide that they have suffered injustice. It is for them to obey and respect Church authority. If they don't want to respect and obey, then they have no complaint coming.
Finally, I was personally acquainted with Archbishop Whealon and that led him to believe correctly that I was not a schismatic malcontent. He readily gave his permission for the Tridentine wedding Mass (scheduled for a Saturday evening) and the diocesan bureaucracy tried to countermand his permission as though it had been given for a Latin Novus Ordo. We learned from the pastor that it was to be a Latin Novus Ordo by last minute intervention of the archdiocesan chancellor (whom we have always and shall always call Sister Mary Sandinista) at 4:55 PM on the Friday immediately preceding the wedding.
When informed by the pastor of Sr. Sandinista's surprise phone call, I called the Chancery to be told she would be unavailable until the next Monday. I got a priest who was a total stranger but was at the Chancery to pick up another priest for an Army Reserve meeting to reach the Archbishop on the matter. Archbishop Whealon promptly called the pastor and told him that it would be a Tridentine wedding Mass or whoever insisted otherwise "had better have a higher position of authority in the Archdiocese than the Archbishop" because they would be answering to him personally.
Ecclesiastical authority as it ought to be exercised. Archbishop Whealon went on to approve weekly Tridentine Masses of obligation on Sundays and Holy Days. Despite tragically declining health (colon cancer, kidney shunts, heart disease), he agreed to preside over an annual Tridentine Mass at New Haven but was able only to sit in chair on the altar area as someone else said the Tridentine Mass.
On one such occasion, the congregation, including the archbishop, could hear a blazing gun battle in the street adjacent to the Church. Ordinarily, the neighborhood drug dealers provided unsolicited protection to the Mass and those attending out of respect for the worship of God in their neighborhood. They would patrol the parking lot and the sidewalks in the vicinity of the Church. They were quite effective.
Presumptuous (and wrong). Firstly, I am not affiliated with SSPX, and thus have no reason to engage in "SSPX agitprop". Secondly, Ecclesia Dei was issued in direct response to Lefebvre's consecrations (fact).
Ummmm, let's see: Marcel did not deserve his fate. He was just misunderstood. Riggghhhht!!!
Presumptuous (and wrong). Excommunications are not infallible. The case of St. Athanasius comes to mind.
That Pope Benedict XVI, exercising the same pontifical authority which he enjoyed upon succeeding Saint JP II, extended to the miscreant SSPX bishops still living, all but Marcel and de Castro Meyer, an undeserved mercy and charity
Presumptuous (and uncharitable). Also inconsistent, since it doesn't sound very "respectful" of Pope Benedict's decision and actions in regard to the SSPX.
that further adherence to SSPX by anyone (including you) was to be regarded as an excommunicating offense and that the faithful were to cease encouraging the schism in any way.
"The Masses offered by priests of the society are valid. Other Sacraments celebrated in the chapels of the society are considered valid, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, which are, at best, doubtfully valid." http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-stunning-mea-culpa-regarding-sspx.html
It is not for the malcontents in the pews to decide that they have suffered injustice. It is for them to obey and respect Church authority.
By that logic, the "malcontents" who objected to their sons being raped by clerical perverts whose filthy activities were concealed by the hierarchy should have held their peace because "it is not for them to decide that they have suffered injustice". Holy Church has always been plagued by the leadership of certain unworthy shepherds. Good Catholics are not required to turn a blind eye to the actions of those destructive Church leaders who corrupt and abuse the faithful, either physically or spiritually.
BTW, I'm very happy that you were able to arrange to be married in the Tridentine rite, but the fact that this could only be accomplished via a personal favor from the bishop speaks to the very problem I am addressing. The vast majority of faithful Catholics are not so fortunate as to have the ear of their bishop. Your post seems to imply that the Protestantized, "relentlessly low rent liturgy" is good enough for the unconnected plebes in the pews who don't have an inside track to Church hierarchy. It smacks of an elitist position, i.e. "for me but not for thee".
Ordinarily, the neighborhood drug dealers provided unsolicited protection to the Mass and those attending out of respect for the worship of God in their neighborhood. They would patrol the parking lot and the sidewalks in the vicinity of the Church. They were quite effective.
Sounds scandalous. One would think that the existence of an unwritten alliance between their parish and drug gangs is not the sort of information "actually Catholics" would want to disseminate.
2. That Ecclesia Dei which declared SSPX leaders to be in schism and excommunicated them certainly followed two days after the consecrations at Econe is without question. It is also the fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc. You suppose that loosening of restrictions on the Tridentine Mass was the primary result of Ecclesia Dei. And yet, the Tridentine Mass was being said somewhat regularly in a number of dioceses with permission of the respective Ordinaries BEFORE Ecclesia Dei.
3. You want to sully the reputation of St. Athanasius by claiming that he is somehow analogous to dead excommunicated Marcel??? Whether excommunications are infallible is not the question. Benedict NEVER questioned the validity of the excommunications on which he signed off as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as did Bernardin Cardinal Gantin who served as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and soon became Dean of the College of Cardinals. When it comes to well-deserved excommunications, the case of dead excommunicated Marcel comes to mind. Another analogy might be made to Archbishop Talleyrand.
4. Given the insolent response of the surviving SSPX bishops to Benedict XVI after he lifted their well-deserved excommunications, it is quite fair to regard the lifting of those excommunications as prudential (non-doctrinal) error. That does not evidence a lack of respect for Benedict XVI but rather a recognition that even so knowledgeable and holy a man as Benedict XVI is not free of prudential error. You would have an impossible time trying to explain Church history without making room for prudential (non-doctrinal) errors by most popes. Nothing disrespectful at all.
5. As to the "validity" of SSPX sacraments which was not in question except as to matrimony and most instances of Penance, you forgot to mention that their remaining sacraments are ILLICIT and most particularly Holy Orders and any further instances of illicit consecration of bishops. Neither Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos nor his Secretary Monsignor Perle had the authority to countermand the papal judgments of Ecclesia Dei by Saint John Paul II. Until Benedict acted, all of Ecclesia Dei remained in effect. Those portions of Ecclesia Dei not altered or lifted by Benedict XVI remain in effect. Penance is simply not authorized except in situations reasonably determined to be at death's door. No such emergencies attend Matrimony or the ordination of schismatic priests or the consecration of still more schismatic bishops as the current ones age out and die.
6. It is still not for the chronic malcontents in the schismatic pews to try to govern the Church which is not a democracy and, God willing, never will be. One instance of child rape by the clergy, regular or schismatic, is one too many. However, the existence of such bad behavior does not put the laity in the driver's seat to dictate to legitimate Church authorities on the SSPX issues. NO ONE argues that priests have a right to so misbehave. The issues of pederasty has nothing whatsoever to do with either the performance of schismatic evils by SSPX leaders nor with punishing same.
7. Those chronic malcontents in the SSPX pews who feel spiritually abused by having legitimate Church authorities prescribe matters of liturgical rubrics, as they always have, are free to find or found the false Church of their own choosing. What they have no right to do is maintain a schismatic shadow Church and CLAIM to be Catholics. Theirs will necessarily not be the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter but you knew that and prefer the path of purporting to bully existing Church authorities, which, fortunately, has not worked to date and hopefully never will.
8. Our Tridentine wedding Mass resulted from a process alien to SSPX and its sycophants: approaching the diocesan ordinary respectfully well in advance of the wedding and making plain that his decision would be honored one way or another, giving the good reason that the Tridentine wedding Mass would be particularly meaningful to the older crowd invited to the wedding and to non-Catholic guests as well. We did not approach the archbishop making unseemly demands as to our non-existent "right" to a Tridentine wedding. In short, we were polite and the archbishop reacted accordingly.
9. More by far than most middle class Catholics might believe, black and Hispanic street criminals have a profound respect for the worship of God. When, as a volunteer attorney, I represented 1100 people generally arrested for felonies in a series of incidents mistakenly called "Operation Rescue," I was amazed as black and Hispanic narcotics dealers in the jails rose to the defense of the white middle class pro-lifers ("We know why WE are here but can't imagine why YOU are here"). They showed the pro-lifers the ropes as to pre-trial incarceration and treated them like royalty. When the late Father Norman Weslin (whom you may remember from his arrest at Notre Shame University carrying a plywood cross on Obozo day there) told the guards to remove a TV equipped with the Playboy channel from the Day Room holding 24 prisoners, the normal prisoners backed him up saying to the guards: "Whatever the priest says, he is speaking for us!" Fr. Weslin had "the smell of the sheep" long before anyone had heard of Cardinal Bergoglio who is now Pope Francis. Fr. Weslin was a lot sounder on doctrine and leadership, however. Whoops, there I go criticizing another pope.
Good.
Your posts exhibit a vitriolic disdain for “dead excommunicated Marcel”, and contempt for Catholics affiliated with SSPX, as well as those you deem to be “sycophants” who choose to view the situation through a charitable lens rather than adopt the harsh, condemnatory “patois” with which your comments are rife.
1. It is evident by your posts that in your opinion, only lockstep concurrence with non infallible, prudential decisions made by Pope JPII (but not Pope BXVI) are permissable. False opinion, and one which on its face contradicts Church teaching.
2. Regarding Ecclesia Dei, the entire document was in response to the Lefebvre consecrations. According to you, “the Tridentine Mass was being said somewhat regularly in a number of dioceses with permission of the respective Ordinaries BEFORE Ecclesia Dei”, which does not change the fact that for most Catholics, the Tridentine Mass was no longer accessible, and had been replaced by a Protestantized and abuse-ridden rite which has contributed to the current widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence, among other rotten fruits. But again, your implication is that as long as it was accessible to the special people such as yourself, who as a consequence of personal connections, were able to arrange matters favorably for themselves in regard to Tridentine Mass availability, all was well.
3. Your contempt for “dead Marcel” apparently blinds you to the fact that the situation is potentially analogous to the the case of St. Athanasius. And as in the case of St. Athansius, only the passage of time will lead us to the truth.
4. According to you, “even so knowledgeable and holy a man as Benedict XVI is not free of prudential error.”
Any claim to logical consistency therefore demands the same view of JPII’s non-infallible, prudential decisions (unless one deliberately chooses to be a hypocrite).
5. “...you forgot to mention that their remaining sacraments are ILLICIT and most particularly Holy Orders and any further instances of illicit consecration of bishops.”
I also forgot to mention the widespread, illicit abuses I have been subjected to at Novus Ordo Masses (including changes to the consecration prayers which potentially invalidated the Mass). Strange that there have been no calls for excommunications as a result of such illicit clerical acts.
6. The scandalous top down cover-up of the world-wide, systemic homosexual abuse occurred during the papacy you so admire, and the suppression of the Tridentine Mass in favor of the Protestantized, abuse-prone Novus Ordo is another example of the abuse of the laity which occurred during that time period. The fact that the Church is not a democracy does not bestow upon the hierarchy the moral right to abuse the laity in such egregious fashion in either case.
7. “Theirs will necessarily not be the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter but you knew that and prefer the path of purporting to bully existing Church authorities, which, fortunately, has not worked to date and hopefully never will.”
Again, you are writing presumptuous nonsense. I don’t believe we’ve met. How can you presume to know what I “prefer”?
8. “In short, we were polite and the archbishop reacted accordingly.”
Bravo! To heck with the poor schmucks who apparently lack the communication skills to approach the bishop with your special finesse. If only they had your skills, they too could have had the Tridentine wedding they wished for.
9. “...black and Hispanic street criminals have a profound respect for the worship of God.
Street criminals (of whatever race) have such “profound respect for the worship of God” yet not enough apparently to refrain from drug dealing, robbery, murder and other assorted acts of villainy.
“Whoops, there I go criticizing another pope.”
Will you be willing to taking your theological cues from Kenneth Copeland and Plim Plim? Will you excoriate those who recognize the destructive nature of the actions of the current pope and hold fast to tradition? It will be interesting to see how far those such as yourself who condemn Lefebvre with zero regard for his motives will be willing to defend the outcome of the synod should it swing in the direction of Cardinal Kasper’s “serene theology”.
1. Vitriolic disdain...contempt...sycophants...and, lest you forget or omit, the "Do It Yourself" faux papal pronouncements of the SSPX schismatics and their faithful supporters as to what "on its face, contradicts Church teaching" Check! And Redouble!
2. Post hoc, propter hoc. Also, balderdash! Being polite and respectful towards and considerate of one's diocesan ordinary does not suggest "special people" nor "personal connections," just good manners. SSPX sycophants should try it some time. It worked for the founders of FSSP. It worked for me and my wife. Of course, it is a different route than throwing temper tantrums at legitimate Church authority reminiscent of "the terrible twos." If the low rent Novus Ordo was approved by Paul VI as the normative Mass of the Church Universal, then perforce it is NOT "Protestantized" and whether the rubrics are being "abused" would seem to be the responsibility of the priest saying the Mass. It is entirely possible for Tridentine Masses to be abused by faithless or negligent priests as well. As to the Tridentine Mass being "accessible" to each and every Catholic, that would be a good idea but hardly to be obtained "on demand" from the pews. What is "Protestantized" is the attitude of people in the pews who think it is somehow their job to boss around the pope and the bishops.
3. St. Athanasius was exiled from his See at Alexandria at five various times by Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian the Apostate and Valens. Whatever these emperors may have displayed as personal qualities, they were NOT popes. At best, you may cite Pope Liberius (under duress) as approving one such exile, however briefly. Popes Pius IX (Quartus Supra) and Benedict XV (Principi Apostolorum Petro) both defended Liberius from claims that he had sided with the Arians against Athanasius. Which Roman emperors exiled dead excommunicated Marcel? That's right! There haven't been any Roman emperors in quite some centuries (1 1/2 millenia or so). However cliched in SSPX circles, your analogy limps fatally.
4. Correct. And the SSPXers proved it by virtually spitting on Benedict XVI in exchange for his manifest generosity towards their living miscreant bishops. You may recall Fellay dictating terms to Benedict XVI as to Fellay's and the schism's demands for Vatican surrender on what SSPX regards as "issues" to be resolved before they will reconcile with the Church, as though the Church might somehow benefit from the return of their august schismatics. And then we have the ritual use of the weapon of liberals everywhere: the dreaded "h" word (hypocrisy). On this score, your argument is that all popes "are made of the same clay, you know!" If Benedict XVI can be said to commit prudential error (in his undue hospitality to the schismatics), then Saint John Paul II just must have been guilty of prudential error in excommunicating Marcel and his co-conspirators in ecclesiastical crime and declaring them schismatic in the first place. Why? Because SSPXland (a new part of DisneyWorld) wishes so fervently for it to be recognized to be so.
5. Have you respectfully communicated your observations and concerns to the diocesan ordinary??? Is he expected to be a mind reader? Stranger still that you have not PUBLICLY called for excommunications. And, of course, it is all about YOU and what YOU have been subjected to. Poor persecuted baby!!!
6. While Saint John Paul II was occupied with the ordinary day-to-day demands of the papacy (recovering from the assassination attempt, cooperating with Ronaldus Maximus and Maggie Thatcher in bringing down the Iron Curtain and terminating the USSR, issuing encyclicals such as Evangelium Vitae, excommunicating heretics and schismatics and so forth), he was actually abusing YOU with that "Protestantized abuse-prone Novus Ordo" AND somehow was personally and knowingly engaged in a "top-down" (your choice of language not mine and pope is the top) "cover up of the worldwide systemic homosexual abuse...." To hear you tell it, Saint John Paul II got up each morning, asking himself: What can I do, as pope, to make BlatherNaut's life miserable today? Fail to restore the Tridentine rites? Cover up some more "worldwide systemic homosexual abuse???" (by about 2% of clergy which seems quite inefficient for worldwide, etc.) Wanna argue for a married priesthood as a one-size fits all false panacea? You've gotten most of the other cliched attacks on the Vatican down pat.
7. I know what you prefer by reading what you write.
8. It is not much of a skill to use respect toward one's archbishop and to politely request permission rather than throwing self-centered fits like a troubled two year-old and trying to boss the archbishop around. Try it and you may get better results than modeling the terrible twos.
9. As to black and Hispanic street criminals, you are smug but ignorant of the facts. I'm not sinless. Are you? I can assure you that Marcel did not get excommunicated for his sinlessness either. He lived another three years during which he could have repented as publicly as he had misbehaved but chose not to so repent. I don't imagine I will be taking cues from Kenneth Copeland or Plim Plim. Are they in line to be consecrated by SSPX when the mood strikes the schism or when the schism is running out of bishops? So now, we are to judge dead excommunicated Marcel by his "motives" rather than his performance? Isn't that what the liberals usually demand? No matter how many times they screw up, only their good intentions count, right? As to your last paragraph and how I may respond to Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar, I have never had much use for Kaspar and do not expect a change in that status quo. As to Pope Francis, I almost left for Russian Orthodoxy over Paul VI and the Novus Ordo before accepting papal authority as to rubrics, but, as Senator Teddy said to Mary Jo as they headed for the Chappaquiddick Ferry, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." We will probably come to it some time after the next papal funeral.
“9. More by far than most middle class Catholics might believe, black and Hispanic street criminals have a profound respect for the worship of God”
==
Hmmmmm ! So if you wore a big gold cross around your neck and you blessed yourself hoping that your team would score that would excuse your street crime?
Color me confused.
.
The worst treatment that most normal prisoners will receive from government will be incarceration. When dozens or even hundreds of mostly white middle class prisoners arrive fresh from being arrested occupying the killing rooms at the local abortion mill and pouring raw eggs into the suction machines and de-sterilizing the killing tools, that is a man bites dog event at the local jail and the regular prisoners are quite impressed that the white middle class folks are willing to get roughed up and tossed in jail for saving babies scheduled for abortion. Judges and court personnel are also impressed though they would die rather than admit it.
The prisoners are also keenly aware that most babies saved look like them. Abortionists have always targeted minorities. Read Margaret Sanger on the subject.
Many regular prisoners lead relatively hopeless lives but do develop hope in God. Some leave jail and do not offend again. If you ever get the chance to observe prisoners in a medium or maximum security prison, you will have opportunities to witness regret and repentance and emotional attachment to God by hardened prisoners. These are men who know that religious displays will not lead to their release. I spent decades as a criminal defense attorney and I know whereof I speak since I have been there with the prisoners.
I have ignored and will ignore the trivializing of the capacity of prisoners and criminals to learn to love and respect God. I honestly don't think that the size of a gold cross makes a bit of difference. Nor does whether your team scores depend on God weighing and comparing piles of prayers for each team to decide which He will allow to score or win. The three children who were the visionaries at Fatima in 1917 were jailed by the local communist poobahs for stirring up belief in God and the appearances by St. Michael and the Blessed Mother. The regular prisoners there also rose to the defense of the children.
Street crime is street crime and must be forgiven, if at all, by the usual means. Good deeds do not remit the guilt for sin. Nor does sin itself make a life so unworthy as to prohibit good deeds. God does not need your help or mine to decide such matters.
I guess I will color you cynical.
Directing presumptuous diatribes larded with snide, sophomoric references such as "dead excommunicated Marcel" toward those with whom you disagree is hardly consistent with your obligations as a Catholic, either. Lots of luck winning hearts and minds with that particular strategy.
"It's very unpleasant to see a Christian insult someone or be aggressive. It's not nice. Don't insult. Insulting isn't Christian. Understood? Insulting is not Christian.”
http://www.romereports.com/pg158253-pope-s-angelus-don-t-insult-insulting-isn-t-christian-en
Goodness, a fanboy/girl of dead, excommunicated Marcel favorably quoting Pope Francis! Even I will not likely be accuse credibly of such a thing. The idea of posturing as a passive mushroom is hardly a matter of faith or morals. It is on a par with Francis imagining and claiming that it will rain next Thursday.
You are making the mistake of imagining that I am trying to change your mind or yor "heart." You can choose to change either or both as you see fit or not as you see fit. America is a great country that allows you that choice. The consequences, if any, are not temporal but are eternal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.