A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label The Bergoglian Heresy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Bergoglian Heresy. Show all posts

Tuesday 24 March 2020

Bergoglio blames Pack-a Mama.

Enjoying your isolation? How's that job going? How's your health?

Blame the communists in China for their wet markets. Blame them for covering up the virus.

And blame this Pope Bergoglio for allowing the bowing down and worship in the Vatican garden of a pagan idol. 

Blame this Pope Bergoglio for allowing into a holy church of Our Lady and the Basilica of St. Peter that wretched and filthy idol.

Blame Pope Bergoglio for ordering that the array of plants representing that Whore of the Amazon be placed on the Holy Altar of God.

Blame that wimp and hypocrite Marini for not dropping it and saying, "Oppsi." 

O LORD in Heaven, free the world from this virus of disease and men who have corrupted the world and your Holy Church.

And blame ourselves for our lust for sodomy, fornication, abortion, greed, power and so much more.

Blame the idolatry that did this.

Spare O Lord, Spare your people.

ROME — Pope Francis told a Spanish journalist Sunday that nature never forgives and the coronavirus pandemic is nature’s cry for humans to take better care of creation.

Asked by a Spanish journalist via Skype whether the COVID-19 pandemic is nature’s way of taking “revenge” on humanity, the pontiff suggested that nature is calling for attention.

“There’s a saying, which you have heard: ‘God always forgives. We sometimes forgive. Nature never forgives,’” the pope said. “Fires, earthquakes … nature is throwing a tantrum so that we will take care of her.”

The pope was also asked whether he is “optimistic” about the future of humanity in dealing with the coronavirus.

“I don’t like that word, because optimism sounds like makeup to me,” Francis replied. “I have hope in humanity, in men and women, I have hope in nations. I’m very hopeful. People who are going to draw lessons from this crisis to rethink their lives.”

“We are going to come out of this better… fewer, of course. Many are left along the way and it’s hard. But I have faith: we will come through this better.”

Since his election in 2013, Pope Francis has insisted on humanity’s responsibility to care for nature, calling for an integral ecology that cares for human beings as well as the rest of creation.

A true ecological approach “always becomes a social approach,” the pope wrote in his 2015 encyclical letter Laudato Si. “It must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”

Francis has also tended to personalize nature, suggesting that it “cries out” when it is mistreated.

Situations such as a loss of biodiversity and economic inequality “have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course,” he wrote. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years.”

“Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself,” he said. “When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected.”

Sunday 13 October 2019

The imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI and the current state of affairs

There is an issue raised in this article by Laramie Hirsch at the Forge and Anvil and I have followed similar thinking.

Laramie discusses the "Bishop in white" statement in the Third Secret of Fatima by Sister Lucy. I have long had issues with the Vatican's 2000 interpretation that this referred to the a pope. How do people miss this. The statement is "we saw a bishop dressed in white, we had the impression that it was the Holy Father." If she was so certain that it was the "Holy Father," why did she not say, "we saw the Pope?" Because, she was confused, it was not the Pope! It was an impostor. Bergoglio even claimed for himself that title, "a bishop dressed in white."

On the night that Bergoglio emerged, I sat and watched and knowing nothing of the man, having never heard the name before, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I had a feeling of foreboding fall around me and I wanted to vomit. It was a warning to me no doubt fro my Guardian Angel at what had just happened. I have believed from that day that Joseph Ratzinger was a prisoner.

This is why the discussion on the validity of the resignation, the conclave and the election of Bergoglio is not going away. Too many people are now aware that something is wrong. Something is very, very wrong.   


From Rome has done exemplary work on the resignation of Benedict XVI and the canonical issues associated with it. In July, the published a chronology on "The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI." The only point of disagreement I have is that they threatened to murder him. Perhaps Joseph Ratzinger was a coward but it seems hard to believe that. Would he not have embraced a personal martyrdom for the Church? No, it was not this. Oh, they threatened him all right, but it was not that they would kill him, or at least not only him. It was something bigger, much bigger. But what?4

This is an important read to see clearly, the timeline.

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/the-imprisonment-of-pope-benedict-xvi/

Know this though. Since that time, two of the perpetrators of this are dead. Carlo Martini and Godfried Danneels. Both are dead and their foul corpses are rotting in the grave. They have been judged by God and their eternity is only known to Him. Thomas J. Rosica, a malefactor if ever one existed, lionised Martini as he wrote here in the Tablet. Well, we think he wrote it but we can't be sure. Where is Rosica? Gone, his fame, his influence, all gone to a psychiatric couch north of Toronto. Who else? McCarrick, a filthy sodomite who bragged about his influence and willingness to be lobbied in the election of Bergoglio which I revealed here back in 2016 and the revelation of his time in St. Gallen, Switzerland.

We are in some of the darkest days of the Church. In the past, persecution of the Church and faithful Catholics came from outside, this persecution is from infiltration within. 

Keep the faith, God has already won this.






Friday 11 October 2019

Whore Hey Bergoglio - Like a dog going back to his vomit

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people standing

I'm not buying it.

If Scalfari is so bad, why does Bergoglio keep going back to him.

This rotten putrid malefactor's actions reveal the truth.

Scalfari is correct.


Image


Thursday 2 May 2019

Jorge Mario Bergoglio - Proves himself to be a Communist and a One World Government Globalist and a precursor to the Antichrist!

The mask is now fully off. The Catholic Church has been fully taken over now by evil men lead by "Pope" Francis, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. This speech is an outrage. He has now proven for all to see that he is not only a heretic, but he is a globalist and an enemy of the nation-state and the right of the individual. He is a scorn upon the earth. He must be denounced. He must be mocked. He must be tried for heresy and exposed for the pervert protecting communist thug that he is.

He is a sociopath, a madman and a danger to every lover of life and liberty on the planet.

Not once, not once in this Bergoglian manifesto of globalist coprophagian lunacy does he mention God or Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, it is that bad.

It is time for Donald J. Trump to begin RICO and expose what is known fully. 

We don't need the buildings. We have the faith!

Lord Jesus, save us from this man of darkness.


Image result for bergoglio angry



Here below is a LifeSite translation of Pope Francis’ address to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
***
Dear brothers and sisters,

I welcome you and thank your President, Prof. Stefano Zamagni, for his kind words and for accepting to preside over the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Also this year you have chosen to discuss an issue of permanent relevance. Unfortunately, we have before our eyes situations in which some nation-states implement their relations in a spirit more of opposition than of cooperation. Moreover, it must be noted that the borders of States do not always coincide with the demarcations of homogeneous populations and that many tensions come from an excessive claim to sovereignty by States, often precisely in areas where they are no longer able to act effectively to protect the common good.

In both the Encyclical Laudato si’ and in the Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps this year, I drew attention to the global challenges facing humanity, such as integral development, peace, care of our common home, climate change, poverty, war, migration, human trafficking, organ trafficking, the protection of the common good, and new forms of slavery.

St. Thomas has a beautiful notion of what a people is: “The Seine river is not ‘this particular river’ because of ‘this flowing water,’ but because of ‘this source’ and ‘this bed,’ and hence is always called the same river, although there may be other water flowing down it; likewise a people is the same, not because of a sameness of soul or of men, but because of the same dwelling place, or rather because of the same laws and the same manner of living, as Aristotle says in book III of the Politica”  (On spiritual creatures, a. 9, ad 10).

The Church has always exhorted men to love their own people and homeland, and to respect the treasure of various cultural expressions, customs and traditions and right ways of living rooted in peoples. At the same time, the Church has warned persons, peoples and governments about deviations from this attachment when it turns into excluding and hating others, when it becomes conflictual nationalism that builds walls, indeed even racism or anti-Semitism. The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism which neglects the common good. There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.

It is a common doctrine that the State is at the service of the person and of the natural groupings of people such as the family, the cultural group, the nation as an expression of the will and profound customs of a people, the common good and peace. All too often, however, States are subservient to the interests of a dominant group, mostly for reasons of economic profit, which oppresses, among others, the ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities who are in their territory.

From this perspective, for example, the way in which a nation welcomes migrants reveals its vision of human dignity and its relationship with humanity. Every human person is a member of humanity and has the same dignity. When a person or a family is forced to leave their own land, they must be welcomed with humanity. I have said many times that our obligations to migrants are articulated in four verbs: to welcome, to protect, to promote and to integrate. The migrant is not a threat to the culture, customs and values of the host nation. He too has a duty, to integrate into the nation who receives him. To integrate does not mean to assimilate, but to share the kind of life of his new homeland, even though he himself as a person the bearer of his own biographical story. In this way, the migrant can present himself and be recognized as an opportunity to enrich the people who integrate him. It is the task of public authority to protect migrants and to regulate migratory flows with the virtue of prudence, as well as to promote reception so that local populations are formed and encouraged to participate consciously in the integration process of the migrants being received.
The issue of migration, which is a permanent feature of human history, also enlivens reflection on the nature of the Nation-State. All nations are the result of the integration of successive waves of people or groups of migrants and tend to be images of the diversity of humanity while being united by common values, cultural resources and healthy customs. A state that arouses the nationalistic feelings of its own people against other nations or groups of people would fail in its mission. We know from history where such deviations lead.

The Nation-State cannot be considered as an absolute, as an island in relation to its surroundings. In the current situation of globalization not only of economy but also of technological and cultural exchanges, the Nation-State is no longer able to procure by itself the common good for its population. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit. When a supranational common good is clearly identified, there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation. Think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new slavery and peace.

While, according to the principle of subsidiarity, individual nations must be given the power to operate as far as they can reach, on the other hand, groups of neighboring nations — as is already the case — can strengthen their cooperation by attributing the exercise of certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests.It is to be hoped that, for example, we will not lose in Europe the awareness of the benefits brought by this path of rapprochement and harmony between peoples undertaken after the Second World War. In Latin America, on the other hand, Simón Bolivar urged the leaders of his time to forge the dream of a Great Homeland that knows how to welcome, respect, embrace and develop the riches of every people.

This cooperative vision among nations can move history by relaunching multilateralism, which is opposed both to new nationalistic pressures and to hegemonic politics.

Humanity would thus avoid the threat of recourse to armed conflicts every time a dispute arises between Nation-States, as well as evading the danger of economic and ideological colonization of superpowers, avoiding the tyranny of the strongest over the weakest, paying attention to the global dimension without losing sight of the local, national and regional dimensions. Faced with the plan of globalization imagined as “spherical,” which levels differences and suffocates localization, it is easy for both nationalism and hegemonic imperialism to re-emerge. In order for globalization to be of benefit to all, one must think of implementing a “multifaceted” form of globalization, supporting a healthy struggle for mutual recognition between the collective identity of each people and nation and globalization itself, according to the principle that the whole comes before the parts, so as to arrive at a general state of peace and harmony.

Multilateral bodies were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home. Of course, these bodies must ensure that States are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disregarding the identity, customs and traditions, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of such tendencies is weakening the multilateral system, with the result of a lack of credibility in international politics and a progressive marginalization of the most vulnerable members of the family of nations.

I encourage you to persevere in your search for processes to overcome what divides nations and to propose new paths of cooperation, especially with regard to the new challenges of climate change and new slavery, as well as the excellent social good that is peace. Unfortunately, today the season of multilateral nuclear disarmament seems outdated and no longer stirs the political conscience of nations which possess atomic weapons. On the contrary, a new season of disturbing nuclear confrontation seems to be opening, because it cancels the progress of the recent past and multiplies the risk of war, also due to the possible malfunctioning of very advanced technologies that are always subject to natural and human imponderables. If, now, offensive and defensive nuclear weapons are placed not only on earth but also in space, the so-called new technological frontier will have raised and not lowered the danger of a nuclear holocaust.

The State is therefore called upon to assume greater responsibility. While maintaining the characteristics of independence and sovereignty and continuing to pursue the good of its people, today its task is to participate in the construction of the common good of humanity, a necessary and essential element for world equilibrium. This universal common good, in turn, must acquire greater legal value at international level. I am certainly not thinking of a universalism or a generic internationalism that overlooks the identity of individual peoples: this, in fact, must always be valued as a unique and indispensable contribution to the greatest harmonious design.

Dear friends, as inhabitants of our time, Christians and academics of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, I ask you to collaborate with me in spreading this awareness of renewed international solidarity in the respect for human dignity, the common good, respect for the planet and the supreme good of peace.

I bless all of you, I bless your work and your initiatives. I accompany you with my prayer, and you too, please, do not forget to pray for me. Thank you!

Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.

Tuesday 30 April 2019

Prominent clergy, scholars accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio, "Pope Francis" of heresy

I join them. 


Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church
Easter Week, 2019
Your Eminence, Your Beatitude, Your Excellency,
We are addressing this letter to you for two reasons: first, to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy, and second, to request that you take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope.
We take this measure as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis's words and actions over several years, which have given rise to one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church.
We are accusing Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy. For the canonical delict of heresy to be committed, two things must occur: the person in question must doubt or deny, by public words and/or actions, some divinely revealed truth of the Catholic faith that must be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith; and this doubt or denial must be pertinacious, that is, it must be made with the knowledge that the truth being doubted or denied has been taught by the Catholic Church as a divinely revealed truth which must be believed with the assent of faith, and the doubt or denial must be persistent.
The entire Letter can be read here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html

Saturday 14 July 2018

Bergoglio's work is summed up as an "Obliteration of the Sacraments"

There is so much to write on, so much to report on. As usual, this is my most demanding time of year professionally speaking, so blogging is going to be light. Even so, I do hope you will continue to come by, at least to get access to many of the best Catholic bloggers in the English speaking world all linked at the left. I will have less of an opportunity to write original posts, but I will try to post articles of interest and importance. Personally, I do enjoy all of your comments and the debate in the comment box, so do please keep it going.

Recently, Sandro Magister wrote and included this article from "Catholica."

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/07/09/a-monk-and-theologian-breaks-the-silence-on-the-churchs-metamorphosis/

“AMORIS LAETITIA” AND THE OBLITERATION OF THE SACRAMENTS

by Giulio Meiattini, OSB
(passages selected from the interview in “Catholica” no. 140)

NOT DISCERNMENT, BUT CUNNING

Couverture_140The situation of confusion is evident. Naturally, there are those who deny that this is a matter of confusion, maintaining that this is the positive result of a style of ecclesial governance aimed at “initiating processes rather than possessing spaces” (cf. “Evangelii Gaudium” 223). Therefore, the first discernment to be made would be precisely on the nature of this situation: can confusion, disagreement among bishops on sensitive doctrinal points, be fruits of the Spirit? To me it seems not. To discern also means understanding if it is appropriate or not to initiate processes in certain fields, and also with what timing, modalities, and objectives.
Let us observe, for example, the manner in which the new discipline for the “divorced and remarried” was reached.
After Cardinal Kasper’s talk at the consistory had prepared the terrain so to speak, the two synods, with an intermediate year of heated discussions, were unable to give rise to a common approach on the problem discussed. Those who read the accounts of the “circuli minores” of the 2015 synod realize very well that on the point in question there was not a shared perspective.
But one thing is clear: that a large majority of the fathers had not developed the conviction to change the traditional discipline. So much so that the authors of the “Relatio finalis,” on the controversial point, took care not to introduce innovations.
But - here is another small step - they drafted formulas of an indefinite tone that, while not providing for access to the sacraments, changed the atmosphere so to speak. Thus the “non-opposition” to those hesitant formulas (which had trouble getting two thirds of the votes) was enough to allow another subsequent small step: a couple of ambiguous little footnotes in “Amoris Laetitia,” which do not affirm or deny but hint at a certain direction.
This further passage smashed the interpretive boundaries, until in the autumn of 2017 - another step - there came the pope’s official approval of the “Criteria” of the bishops of the region of Buenos Aires on chapter VIII of “Amoris Laetitia.”
But these criteria, if one is honest, are not a simple interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia.” They add and say things that are not to be found in “Amoris Laetitia” and that, above all, had never been approved at the synods and never would have been. […]
Thus, through small successive steps, over the course of three years a very large one was made and the discipline was slowly changed, but certainly not in a synodal manner, in my view.
I may be wrong, but this “modus operandi” is not discernment, but rather cunning. In place of reasonable and open debate (the famous “dubia” have never received a response!), the strategy of persuasion and of the fait accompli took hold.

FAITH REDUCED TO ETHICS

Among the ethical demands and the sacramental foundation of Christian existence, the center is undoubtedly the sacrament, which is the communication to the believer of the grace that saves, and, in that it is welcomed by and transforms man, is also an act of glorification, doxology. […] Ethics is neither the first word not the last.
In “Amoris Laetitia,” however, the opposite logic is followed: the starting points are categories taken from the natural law and principles of general ethics (attenuating factors, the relationship between universal norm and subjective situation, non-imputability, etc.), and from these major premises are drawn the consequences for the pastoral practice of the sacraments.
In this way, the dimension of the symbolic and the sacramental, which should anchor, embrace, and transcend the moral sphere, loses its significance and becomes a mere appendix to ethics. […] The demonstration is given by the fact that in concrete terms the sin of adultery loses its public significance linked to the testimonial aspect of the sacrament, and can be remitted in the “internal forum” without any need to explain before the community why a spouse who publicly contradicts the sacramental sign of fidelity should publicly receive the Eucharist.
In short, the result of the decisions of “Amoris Laetitia” is the reduction of the sacramental to the moral, meaning of faith to ethics, which to me does not seem to be a mere question of pastoral practice. What is at stake here is something essential to the nature of Christianity.

A “TREMENDOUS BURDEN”?

I sincerely do not understand how a bishop, above all that of Rome, could write phrases of this kind: “There is no need to lay upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union existing between Christ and his Church” (“Amoris Laetitia” 122).
Here is the glaring exemplification of what I stated before in a general way: if the evangelical ethic is isolated from the sacrament and reduced to a general norm it becomes “a tremendous burden,” like the Mosaic law, instead of “an easy yoke and a light burden.” Whatever happened, in this perspective, to the transformative effect of the sacrament? […] So then we could ask ourselves whether the encouragement of bearing witness to faith in Christ to the point of bloodshed is not an even more tremendous burden, not to be placed on the shoulders of the people. […]
One arrives at this point only if one is accustomed to conceiving of Christianity - perhaps without fully realizing it - as ethics.

“SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR”

“Amoris Laetitia” goes so far as to say that even if according to outward appearances one is living in a condition of objective sin, on account of attenuating factors one could be in the state of grace and even “grow in the life of grace” (no. 305).
It is clear that if this is the way things are, the interruption between sacrament and moral action, as already highlighted, leads to outcomes that overlap with the Lutheran conception of “simul iustus et peccator,” condemned by the Council of Trent. […] In this way, one could be at the same time just (before God, invisibly) and a sinner (before the Church, visibly). Works are at risk of having no more significance in the “discernment” of grace.

CATHOLIC COMMUNION EVEN FOR A BUDDHIST?

The direction that is taking shape around intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants obeys the same logic: it is not symbolic realism that determines the decision, but the simple evaluation of the presumed interior condition: if a Protestant is presumably in the state of grace (based on the attenuating factors of invincible ignorance, diminished responsibility, an honest way of life, etc.), why could he not receive the Catholic Eucharist? Perhaps one does not realize that posing the question this way could lead to making the same argument for a Buddhist or a Hindu who lives a good and just life. Tampering with the relationship between morality and the sacraments ultimately can lead to ecclesiological conceptions that are not Catholic.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Monday 21 May 2018

Secular Media is now picking up the latest Bergoglian heresy

The secular media is now picking up the story one below here wherein Juan Carlos, the prominent victim of the sodomite priest, Karadima, has said that as a "gay" man, according to "Pope" Francis, God made him that way.

It is hard to find a reason why Mr. Carlos would lie about this. It is consistent with what Bergoglio has said before. 

Mr. Carlos believes that he is a homosexual. Bergoglio has said that God created him this way.

Pope Francis, you are a filthy liar!

And every act of sodomy that Mr. Carlos commits will be on your soul on the day of your particular judgement.

Tuesday 2 January 2018

Bishops of Kazakhstan Issue stunning correction of Pope Francis' approval of heresy

From Gloria TV:


Pope Francis’ approval of the pastoral norms of the Buenos Aires Bishops has caused a considerable and increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, write three Kazakhstan Bishops.

They are Astana Archbishop Tomash Peta, Karaganda Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga and Astana Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Their statement is dated December 31, 2017.

It sees the pastoral norms as a means of spreading the “plague of divorce” even in the life of the Church. Legitimating a second liaison “represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old” sacramental discipline and doctrine of the Church.

The bishops quote from the Church Fathers up to recent popes who unanimous agree that a second liaison is never legitimate.


They conclude, “It is not licit to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”




Profession of the immutable truths
about sacramental marriage

After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris laetitia" (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called "divorced and remarried," who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called "divorced and remarried," may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the "plague of divorce" (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the "plague of divorce" even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God's will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God's express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. "The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called "sacraments of faith." (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). "Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125).

The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: "This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age." (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and "Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: "The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth"(Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: "There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church" (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: "The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it" (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

• "For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)

• "With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful "(Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).

• "The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it" (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).

• "Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ" (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).

• "Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• "The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

• “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the Church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).

• "The Church's firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man's true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth"(John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• “When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the "poorest of the poor" on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal" (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).

• "The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord“ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).

As Catholic bishops, who - according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council - must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23 ) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bimillennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:

• Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage - which occurs in the case of the so-called "divorced and remarried" - are always contrary to God's will and constitute a grave offense against God.

• No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object" (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

• The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called "divorced and remarried" does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.

• It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful "to do evil so that good may come" (Romans 3, 8).

• The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God's grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.

• People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate "in Spirit and in Truth" (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: "Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!" (Revelation 19, 9).

• The fulfillment of God's will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.

Being bishops in the pastoral office those, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith ("cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei", see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called "divorced and remarried" to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth .

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.

+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Sunday 3 December 2017

Francis officially promulgates the heresy within Amoris Laetitia - Where are the Cardinals?


Perhaps you thought that Advent was only going to be videos of the real music of Advent as the secular world has already begun celebrating "money-mess," how can we ever use the word, Christmas for what they have done to the glorious feast of the Word of God becoming a little baby.

Alas, the world goes on and the horror which is Jorge Bergoglio must be made known.

As is being reported, the infamous letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires that their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, -- that Holy Communion may be given to those living in adultery - divorced and civilly remarried with no Decree of Nullity that there was no prior marriage -- is the correct interpretation has now been published in the Act Apostoliicae Sedis, giving it official and potentially, "magisterial" status.

From OnePeterFive, we have these comments by Marco Tossatti:
[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.
The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.
To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.
 
And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.
The debate will now begin as the Catholics with their heads in the sand and deny reality try to spin that it is only magisterial if he commands it be taught. Look, a letter from a pope, private correspondence leaked to the media and published months back on the Vatican's own website is now published in the Official Acts of the Apostolic Seat. That is magisterial. Did Bergoglio not say that he speaks every day and everything he says is "magisterial?"


Doubt no longer.

A pernicious and filthy heretic is sitting on the Chair of Peter, Is it up to the few remaining Catholics to call him out as a heretic? 

The Cardinals must now begin the formal process. He must be called out and warned to recant it, given time and it must be done again.


If he refuses, he must be formally declared a heretic and that in itself, causes him to lose the Chair of Peter because a heretic cannot be Pope!

Image


Thursday 9 November 2017

And to think, Amoris Letitia was all about Haiti and North Korea

In an interview with the Italian publication La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and translated by LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Müller affirms the legitimacy of the Dubia of the four Cardinals, two of whom are now deceased. He also goes on to state that there are "no exceptions," to the ban on Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. 

The issue that is jumped over here and in the two Synods is that of the Church's exercise within Marriage Tribunals of Decrees of Nullity. As one who was granted a Decree of Nullity which had numerous grounds aside from canonical irregularities, it always struck this writer as the misunderstood right of the Church and faithful in this whole discussion. Let us put aside the polemical debate of "abuse" of the process. If the parties are honest and tell the truth and the Church decrees nullity, then there is no sin, nor deception on the part of the faithful. If the Tribunal abused the process then it is the sin of those judges and the bishop. The fact is, if a Decree of Nullity is granted, it renders the fact that the first "marriage" was not valid, there was no marriage.

The process of "discernment" and "accompaniment" are the inherent issues of Eucharistic attack in Amoris Laetitia. Let the few, very few Catholics who care about practicing their faith seek decrees of nullity. Let the Church's age-old practice apply, streamlined if necessary. It is not a degrading process, nor is it overtly expensive, at least not from the experience of most.

But Müller's argument falls apart when he returns to the internal forum matter.  He confirms that Amoris Laetitia throws a battering ram through the traditional process of Decrees of Nullity for accompaniment, - accompaniment is the new annulment process. Why bother then for what is true and right, just make your own decision with a priest who is prepared to go along with it.

Of course, what we did not know, is that it is all for North Korea and Haiti.

And we thought selling ones soul for Wales was serious.


Image result for cardinal muller

Cardinal Müller clarifies: There are ‘no exceptions’ to ban on Communion for ‘remarried’



Cascioli: And so we touch on the question of the indissolubility of marriage. In recent days, it’s been said that you are convinced there can be some exceptions. 
Cardinal Muller: No exceptions. This idea is false. I gave a clear theological explanation, which left no room for misunderstanding. I would like to bring peace to the situation and not fuel polemics between opposing groups. 
And so we need to be clear that when it comes to a legitimate sacramental marriage there can be no exceptions. The sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. Just as there are no exceptions in the validity of baptism, or of the transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ.” 
But in Buttiglione’s essay, he refers to several very particular situations in which there would be a venial sin, so that it should be possible to be absolved and to receive the sacraments while maintaining the state of the second union. 
In my introduction it is very clearly written that reconciliation is needed, and this is only possible if there is first contrition and a firm purpose not to commit the sin anymore. Certain people who address these issues do not understand that approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation does not mean automatic absolution. There are essential elements without which reconciliation cannot be achieved. If there isn’t contrition there cannot be absolution and if there is no absolution, if one remains in the state of mortal sin, one cannot receive Communion. 
As for Buttiglione, he refers to situations where knowledge of the Catholic faith is a problem. These are cases of unconscious Christians, who are baptized but unbelieving, who may have gotten married in Church to please their grandmother, but without a real awareness. Here it becomes a problem when, after many years, they return to the faith and then question the marriage. There are many such cases. Benedict XVI also looked at the issue. So what’s to be done? In this sense we can say with the Pope that discernment is needed, but this does not mean that one can be granted access to the sacraments without the conditions mentioned above. The issue here is not about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but about the validity of many marriages that aren’t really valid. 
But in your essay you also refer to cases of people who convert or return to the faith after already having entered a second union, and regarding the sacraments you talk about a decision in the internal forum. What do you mean? 
While in Europe things are clear enough at least theoretically, in many countries there are many difficult situations to judge. In Latin America, for example, there are many marriages that are not celebrated according to the canonical form. There are couples who live together but one doesn’t know if there is an actual marriage consent. I was in Haiti recently and the situation there is disastrous; everyone is called a spouse. They live together but they aren’t formally married either in church or civilly. When some mature, they start going to church and then you have to determine who the true husband or wife is. And here it’s important for the person to be honest and say sincerely with whom they have expressed true consent, because it is the consent that makes a marriage, not only the canonical form. In any case, in order to be admitted to the sacraments, the parish priest or bishop must clarify the situation in cooperation with the freedom of the faithful. But there are also situations that are overturned. 
Can you say more? 
There are particular circumstances, for example under regimes that persecute the Church, where it isn’t possible to be married canonically. Let’s take the example of North Korea: the few Catholics who are present there still have the right to marry, and here a marriage is possible only through consent. But if in time something happens and the two separate, and they want to remarry, then everything depends on the internal forum, on their honesty in acknowledging if there was consent or not, and they have to express that to the priest or to the new husband or wife. 
This is where conscience comes into play. 
Yes, but conscience understood properly, not like certain journalists explain it who water down the truth. We are talking about a right conscience, one that cannot say “I don’t have to respect God’s law.” Conscience does not free us from God’s law but gives us the guidance to fulfill it. 
However, in your introduction to Buttiglione’s book, you shy away from casuistry and seem especially concerned with offering several clear criteria for understanding Amoris Laetitia so as to avoid what you explicitly call “heretical interpretations.” 
Exactly. Unfortunately, there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis himself spoke of a Thomist apostolic exhortation. And so it is right to read it in light of St. Thomas, and on admission to the Eucharist, St. Thomas is clear dogmatically and also has a pastoral sensitivity for individuals.