BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Versione Completa   Stampa   Cerca   Utenti   Iscriviti     Condividi : FacebookTwitter
Pagine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ..., 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, [366], 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, ..., 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 01:12


I have dilly-dallied about translating the following two items because some assertions by Guerriero directly challenge my interim choice to ignore all the indications in his book and Seewald's that Benedict XVI appears to be publicly giving unconditional support to Jorge Mario Bergoglio - which would mean endorsing all the un-Catholic and anti-Catholic words and acts of the latter. It amounts to a state of denial on my part which I find preferable to protesting passionately, "How could you, Joseph Ratzinger????"


Elio Guerriero visits Benedict XVI:
An old disciple and a splendid professor

By Alessandro Notarnicola

Sept. 23, 2016

“Finally it happened. A few days ago, I took the train to bring my book to Pope Benedict. I was a bit timorous, really. I was bringing the book to the theologian Pope. I, an old disciple, to him, a speldnid professor.”

Thus author and theologian Elio Guerriero, who is a regular contributor to Avvenire, wrote on his Facebook page. A few weeks ago, Mondadori published his Servitore di Dio e dell’umanità. La biografia di Benedetto XVI.

Guerriero accompanied his note with the photo which shows him seated next to the emeritus Pope who looks up smiling from leafing through the book of which, while it was being written, he had agreed to review the manuscript, responding to numerous questions of clarification and providing valuable suggestions to a biography that he had authorized Guerriero to write.

The author recalls his visit: “As soon as I entered the library-salon, I felt good vibrations. I handed him the book, and he paused to look at the cover. He nodded and said, ‘The background color reminds me of Bavaria’. And those who know his love for his Bavarian homeland, the comment was a compliment. Then he went through the Table of Contents attentively, asking an explanation for the theme titles, and thanked me with great conviction. I told him that the public interest shown in the book confirms a widespread perception that we are going through a kind of ‘Ratzinger renaissance’ that has nothing to do with those who insist on seeing a contrast between him and his successor, who say that what he says in public about Pope Francis is dictated by circumstance. Which is nonsense. Pope Benedict is sincere and more free than ever. But those who remember his teaching and his person with renewed interest do not lose sight of his invitation to the essentials of the faith, his writings on love and faith, his appeals about Europe that its leaders ought to have listened to. And even if his attention now seems directed elsewhere, to the next life, I think he is grateful for
the acknowledgment of facts and truth in the book”.

Guerriero explains that since he became a bishop, Joseph Ratzinger had always interpreted his role as servant of God, which explains the title he chose for this book. A role which he has continued even under the ministry of Papa Bergoglio, who is linked spiritually to his predecessor by the concept of mercy. The book starts with a Preface written by Pope Francis and ends with an interview with Benedict XVI.

In the Preface, Pope Francis describes his predecessor underscoring his courage and determination. Guerriero points out that Joseph Ratzinger was always someone who was not afraid to take unpopular positions when it had to do with the good of the Church.

“It is what he did as a theologian, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and as Pope. You will recall his interview book with Messori in 1984, when he criticized liberation theology [as it was then practised in Latin America], incurring great unpopularity. And whereas many theologians had said they had ‘re-formed’ themselves, quite generically, ‘in the spirit of Vatican II’, he was always guided by what the Council ‘dictated’ [what its documents actually say]. He followed the example of Hans Urs von Balthasar who was never afraid to criticize dominant theological positions. And as Pope, he often exhorted bishops and priests to be courageous, not to become mediators of consensus”.

For his blog, Aldo Maria Valli, lead Vaticanista for RAI State TV, interviewed Guerriero:

'Benedict XVI:
Servant of God and of mankind'

Translated from the blog
of Aldo Maria Valli

Sept. 23, 2016

“This ample biography of my predecessor Benedict XVI is welcome: It offers a reliable and balanced overview of his life and the development of his thinking”.

Thus begins Pope Francis’s Preface to Elio Guerriero’s book Servitore di Dio e dell’umanità. La biografia di Benedetto XVI (Mondadori, 542 pp), a work in which the author, a theologian and Church historian who for a long time was lead editor of Jaca Books and San Paolo publications, combines his competence as a specialist with his narrative abilities and his admiration for the emeritus Pope.

Elio Guerriero, how did this book come about and what is its purpose?
I met Cardinal Ratzinger for the first time in 1985. I was working with San Paolo publishing house and I was assigned to pursue the translation of his works in Italian. The work required that we would meet from time to time, and so, in addition to growing acquaintance with his works, our personal relationship also grew. Right away, one noted the difference between the person and the image that was current about him.

Then, he was elected Pope, with a Pontificate marked by extraordinary Magisterium and governing difficulties. [Guerriero appears to adopt unquestioningly the media commonplaces about Benedict’s Pontificate. What specific governing difficulties did he have that were any different from or worse than governing difficulties encountered in the Pontificates of his predecessors – or of his successor, for that matter? There were never any genuine or major scandals, and even the ‘worst’ of his personnel problems (his choice of Cardinal Bertone as Secretary of State, the manufactured problems about Ettore Gotti Tedeschi at IOR) never did result in anything disastrous or injurious in the long run to the Vatican or to the Church.]

But I think the decisive push to write this book came with his renunciation of the Petrine ministry. I felt compelled to underscore that his decision resulted from his faith that the Church is really led by Christ himself, who would, [B]through the Holy Spirit, choose a pastor able to show the way that she must take, which is what has happened.

What does this book add to what we already know about Joseph Ratzinger and his pontificate?
First of all, there are various clarification on the origins – underscoring the importance of the thought of St. Augustine and St. Bonaventure in his formation – of the ideas which were his major contributions to Vatican II, especially to the Constitution on Divine Revelation.

Then it contains an overview of his tenure as Archbishop of Munich-Freising, of which little has been said before this.

And for his long service at the CDF, I highlighted his ability to unify and to promote the faith, especially with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In his Pontificate, I showed the importance that Pope Benedict always gave to the Church’s universal call to holiness, which was considered the great novelty of Vatican II. For Benedict XVI, the saints are the best explanation of the Gospel over time. And he also proposed a new humanism for the Third Millennium which is a possible way out for the many difficulties the world is facing today.

Benedict XVI will go down in history because of his renunciation. Do you think he should be remembered only for this or also for other contributions he has made to the Church and to mankind?
Of course, his renunciation will be remembered as a significant turning point in the history of the Church, but the contributions he has made to the Magisterium and to Christian life since the latter part of the 20th century to the present is very rich and comprehensive. Pope Francis refers to that authoritatively in his preface to the book.

For my part, I wish to underscore his insistence on the harmonious collaboration between reason and faith, which he has defended from his first university professorship in Bonn in the late 1950s; his constant evocation of the love of God, which opened the way to the path of mercy that his successor emphasizes; and in recent years, the expression of his tender and passionate love for Jesus [in the JESUS OF NAZARETH trilogy]. Other themes are his idea for serious dialog among religions, his love for Creation, the way of beauty which comes from God and leads back to him.

Pope Francis writes in the preface that the presence of an emeritus Pope is a novelty, and because the two popes love each other, it is ‘a beautiful novelty’. Beyond the esteem that they have for each other, is everything truly well with having two popes, or are there problematic issues?
I would not say there are problematic issues, but about the difficulties that could arise in the event that the reigning pope and the emeritus are not in agreement. But it must not be forgotten either that the difficulties are far from minor for a pope who remains in office despite serious illness. This has been the subject of investigation by canon lawyers.

But I maintain that with Benedict XVI, one must start off with the concept of a service that can be carried out fully if one is in good health. Otherwise, while conserving the properly sacramental aspect of the office, one ought to renounce the exercise of the episcopal or papal mandate. [Diversamente, conservando l’aspetto propriamente sacramentale, conviene rinunciare all’esercizio del mandato episcopale o papale.]

[I had to include the original statement in Italian, because all those who argue that the title 'emeritus pope' makes no sense and is canonically impossible say the reason is that a pope is not 'consecrated' sacramentally as bishops are. From his statement, Guerriero apparently thinks there is a 'properly sacramental aspect' to the papal mandate. I don't know if a competent canon lawyer/Church historian can clarify this issue. Does the 'Mass to inaugurate the Petrine ministry' - during which the new Pope is invested with the pallium and his ring of office - not constitute his consecration as Pope? How can that Mass be any sacramentally less than the consecration of a bishop?]

On the other hand, seeing the example before our eyes, we can only thank God and the two protagonists themselves for their beautiful testimony of communion and brotherhood.

The book ends with an interview with the emeritus Pope. Can you tell us how you found him? What struck you the most at that meeting?
That Pope Benedict has kept his mental lucidity intact. But physically, he inevitably shows his age, 90 next year. In the visits I have made to him, I was struck by the serenity of his spirit, his sincere admiration for his successor [OUCH, OUCH, OUCH! Shall I trust Guerriero on this, or is he simply trying to make nice with the pope who wrote a preface to his book?], his closeness to the life of the Church. This confirms for me the rightness of his decision and the quality of his personal witness which remains even during his years in retirement.

Beatrice notes that the formal presentation of Guerriero's book in Rome was to have taken place yesterday with a completely Bergoglian cast of characters - Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Fr. Federico Lombardi (named by the Vatican to be the new president of the Fondazione Vaticana Joseph Ratzinger/Benedetto XVI, now considered a Vatican agency), and Andrea Riccardi, founder of the Sant'Egidio Community, described best in Beatrice's words, "who recently was in the news as inspirer and coordinator of the Assisi meeting, and who has projected himself as the key man in 're-framing' Benedict XVI as being in continuity with Jorge Bergoglio (not the other way around)". No chances taken by having a Georg Gaenswein who might once again speak of an 'enlarged papacy'!

TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 02:05

A Google-translated screen capture of Erzdioezese-wien.at – the official Archdiocesan website of Vienna, Austria. The title appears confusing in English, but the two uses of “equality” stem from words with different meanings in German: Gleichberechtigung (equality of rights) and Gleichmacherei (levelling or uniformization).

Cardinal Schönborn’s website promotes
gender theory as pope praises him for
his 'care of Sacred Doctrine'

BY MAIKE HICKSON

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016

On the official website of the Archdiocese of Vienna, Austria – whose reigning archbishop is Cardinal Christoph Schönborn – two different articles, though not explicitly related to one another, will likely be of great importance for Catholics in the world today.

First, there is to be found the report that Pope Francis himself has just written a supportive letter to Cardinal Schönborn on the occasion of his 25th anniversary as a bishop. Francis praises this cardinal for his leading the Austrian Bishops’ Conference as its President “in a praiseworthy manner” and for his “concordance of word and work” that is so manifest in his personal witness.

The pope also highlights that Cardinal Schönborn in his office as archbishop – and especially in his “care for the Sacred Doctrine” – is notably attentive that the sheep entrusted to him may “follow the path which you [Schönborn] show them with help of your words and your example.”

In the midst of such praise, however, another post on the same official website of Cardinal Schönborn seems to throw some doubt upon the assurance that this cardinal is leading his sheep in the right direction and for the right reasons. His own website [worse, it's the archdiocesan website, not hie personal website] has now published an article about a theologian, Professor Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel, who recently presented a strong attack on those Catholics who are at all critical of “Gender Theory.”

The Viennese Professor had just helped organize a conference from 22 to 25 September 2016 at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna about the Gender Theory, and he afterwards gave an interview to the Austrian Bishops’ news agency Kathpress.at (the article that is posted on the Vienna archdiocesan website).

In it, this theologian criticizes “anti-genderism,” which is widely spread within ecclesial circles, for its unacceptable generalizations, which are: that gender is merely a social construction; and that heterosexual relationships shall be dissolved and the traditional family destroyed.

He further says: “These often intentional misunderstandings and attacks against the purported ‘left-wing’ movement, which itself comes out of feminism, are in themselves ‘highly ideological’.” Prüller-Jagenteufel is quoted as saying that “gender theory aims at equality and not at leveling down.”

In summing up the discussions from his own 22-25 September conference, Prüller-Jagenteufel says that many people claim that those who support the gender theory want “to create a new man,” just as Marxism strove to do.

Interestingly in this context, he explicitly makes a demeaning comment on Poland and on Hungary – two prominently earnest countries which still try to resist the implementation of the gender theory in their own beset homelands.

The article claims that the Austrian professor merely wants to “deconstruct” certain (unspecified) roles for men and women, but, not to destroy them. Summing up the theologian’s ideas, the article supportively says:

It is mostly about questioning labels and about making individual freedom more possible in how we lead our own lives. Additionally, ambiguities that come to us through trans- and intersexuality are only now being better perceived by us today – contrary to earlier times.


Prüller-Jagenteufel then also speciously insists upon the fact that both man and woman are made in the likeness of God and that this fact should have (again unspecified) consequences upon our ways of thinking. In this context, he therefore says: “There is a reason why Pope Francis just recently initiated a commission studying the history of the female diaconate.”

As the professor teaches theology at the University of Vienna, his license to teach theology comes from Cardinal Schönborn himself.

The Austrian news agency Kathpress.at, under the Austrian bishops' conference, also published an article on 23 September about the above-mentioned conference on gender theory, quoting several feminists who addressed the conference as promoting the idea of a feminist theology and further promoting the influence of women in general within the Church. They also discredit the gathering resistance against gender ideology and compared “anti-Genderism” with “other right-wing populist movements.”

With just these examples, a Catholic can easily recognize that the Viennese Archdiocese is giving inordinate scope to strongly undermine undermine orthodox Catholic prelates and laymen – such as Cardinal Robert Sarah and Cardinal Carlo Caffarra – who try to defend the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and the family in its entirety.

It sheds additional light upon what Cardinal Schönborn is progressively promoting, not just allowing, in his own diocese. Thus, it seems doubtful to say that he is leading his sheep in the right direction, as Pope Francis claims. [He is, by JMB's standards!...Yet this man continues to be president of the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis Foundation! Maybe I shouldn't get into the flagrant contradictions inherent in this last fact, a long-standing anomaly, at least as I see it, that has been allowed to stand all these years...]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 03:58


As cringeworthy as the above item is from VOX CANTORIS (who cites some Spanish press sources for his claim that the new bishop has said "Who can say if embryos are alive or not?", revealing abject ignorance, and that progress is made in tolerance by accepting same-sex marriage), much more morbidly compelling and spine-chilling is the following reflection occasioned by the picture of the new bishop and his mega-loaf 'Eucharist'. What the writer has to say about what went on in a British seminary in the late 1990s is something even the worst anti-Catholic fiction could not fabricate...

Satan's war on
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass


Wednesday 28 September 2016

As the Canadian Vox Cantoris blog has revealed, Pope Francis has just appointed this sacrilegious character to be the new auxiliary bishop of Merlo-Moreno in Argentina. No true Catholic could view this picture of Mass - complete with vast crumbling loaves, pottery vessels and wine glasses - without experiencing deep interior distress and sorrow. It is above all else a grave offence against the Most Blessed Sacrament. As such, and of course less importantly, it also offends against the sensitivities of genuine Catholics.

As Vox Cantoris also demonstrates, this grave scandal is only intensified by the fact that this sacrilegious priest has spoken in relativistic terms about the life of human embryos and on the theme of homosexual pairings.

Far from being promoted, this priest should be having his priestly faculties suspended by his superiors. I say that for the good of the Church, for the souls of those promoting him, for the priest's own soul and for the salvation of the souls who will be forced to suffer his leadership.

Although shocked, I must say that I am not at all surprised to learn that Fr. Oscar Eduardo Minarro has previously been put in charge of the seminarians in his home diocese.

At so many levels, this latest news gets to the very heart of the crisis searing the Catholic Church. What we are witnessing is nothing short of Satan's war on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The great St. Alphonsus de Liguori famously warned:

The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' (Daniel 8:12).


The war from without
Some years before finding Catholic Truth, our family spent about a year in the mid-80's attending a 'free-evangelical church' on Merseyside. The self-appointed pastor was very anti-Catholic and frequently used his weekly platform to rail against the 'ancient whore of Babylon' and the 'Antichrist in Rome'!

At a certain point each week, he would put down his King James Bible and raise up a bap of bread in one hand. In a bold and scoffing voice, he would announce that this was only bread and that it would not change its state. After reading the Last Supper narrative from one of the Gospels, he would then tear off chunks from this bread and share them out with a cup of Ribena.

He was right, of course. As a self-appointed minister with no Catholic priesthood, that bap would indeed remain a mere bread roll. Without Holy Orders or communion with Christ's Church, he could only serve people with his own errant interpretations of Scripture and nourish them with mere earthly food.

Looking back, it is amazing to think that such a strand of real Lutheran Protestant bigotry had survived so intact into mid-1980s Britain. Whilst most of the nation grooved into post-modernity to the musical accompaniment of the Communards and Whitney Houston, here was this little group bashing its tambourines to 'Let the Fire Fall' and babbling in strange tongues...

The point is, this guy hated the Catholic Church, the Catholic priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. From the amount of time he dedicated to this theme, his hatred for the Catholic Church was clearly a foundational aspect of his entire belief system. As such, he set up his little church to reflect that hatred with a circle of chairs gathered around his chair and a low, unadorned table, on which he stood the King James Bible, a bap and a mug of fruit juice.

Oh, there was also a buzzing overhead-projector for the words to the praise and worship songs. Well, it was the 80s!

As a true follower of Luther's heresies, this chap waged his personal war against the Catholic Church from beyond its borders.

He was wrong, but he was honest.

That pastor was right about one thing though: he described Catholic seminaries as 'cemeteries' where young men go to die spiritually. When he said that, I was a 15-year old Protestant. I never dreamed that I would become a Catholic 6 years later; much less that I would go off to a Catholic seminary 4 years after that. Neither could I have known what trials awaited me there...

The war from within
Far more sinister than the weekly rantings of that pastor fellow was the war on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that I encountered from within the Catholic Church a whole decade later at Ushaw Seminary.


From 1997-1999, this was the view from my bedroom window at Ushaw on the windswept moors to the west of Durham.

It was consoling to look down at St. Joseph's chapel in the dead of night and see the red Sanctuary Lamp; denoting the Real Presence and flickering through the stained glass window above the Tabernacle. That faithful red sentinel acted like a beacon of hope in the midst of so many of the spiritual storms that my friends and I weathered in that dark place.

It was especially consoling to look out at that crimson lantern when groups of drunken and effeminate gin queens partied beyond my locked door, in the early hours, night after night.

As I found out to my cost, complaining only made matters worse...

A far more serious cause of sleepless nights in that place though, was the manner in which the Blessed Sacrament was treated.

Upon arriving at the seminary, I had been greatly shocked to hear students disparaging Eucharistic Adoration as 'bread worship'. I had also been greatly troubled to learn that we were not allowed to kneel at Holy Mass, even for the Consecration and Elevations. [JMB must have been trained at such a seminary!]

I felt like I'd left the world of 90s Britain for the grim times of Nazi or Soviet oppression.

A theologically orthodox priest told me not to rock the boat if I wanted to get ordained. It became an annoying pattern in those days to hear solid priests telling me to "keep my head down and get ordained".

I remember thinking that I'd either end up with no faith at all, or else as a totally compromised priest, if I were required to keep my mouth shut about everything bad that was happening to Jesus, to Catholic doctrine and to good vocations in that grim place.

Anyway, that priest recommended that instead of kneeling, I should make a profound bow towards the altar at the key moments in the Mass. I was not happy, but there was no other help forthcoming from anywhere else and I could see no other way to reach ordination.

So much for religious liberty', eh!

The next problem concerned the hosts used for Mass. Although not on the scale as that pictured above in Argentina, the breads used were also large, crumbling and powdered. They were circular with triangular segments marked off for 'fractioning' prior to distribution. Every single day, large particles scattered far and wide from these breads. The hurried fractioning process carried out by priests and deacons only made this worse.

Holy Communion was administered standing and in the hand only.

One had to develop a way to surreptitiously consume all the powdery fragments that came away in the palm of the hand.

This was because some members of staff kept a close scrutiny on students to see if they checked or licked their hands after Communion to consume all of the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. Those caught doing so could expect to receive accusations of 'scrupulosity' on their end-of-term reports.

One morning, a priest stacked about four crumbling triangles of this bread onto my palm as I was the last in the line that day. I never made the mistake of being last in line again...

During the first days at the seminary, each new student was allocated to a small team and told to join them for a 'group Mass' every Monday evening. Again, I was aghast to discover the nature of these Masses: the priests wore lay clothes with no vestments at all and used a low and unadorned coffee table as the 'altar', the deacon and students would lounge on bean bags or even lie giggling like schoolgirls across the floor during Mass, students would 'share personal reflections' or 'bring along something that helps them to pray' after the Gospel, and the paten of hosts was passed around for each person to help themselves and do their own elevation prior to reception...

We even had one priest in our group who replaced the words, 'Lord, we are not worthy to receive you', with the phrase 'Sisters and brothers... you are worthy to receive!'

By the way, that whole 'sisters' thing referred not only to the female lay students, who may be reclining on the beanbags among the seminarians, but to the occasional presence of women who were training to be Anglican vicars at the nearby Cranmer Hall! (As in the burned heretic, Thomas Cranmer...)

Due to the 'pass the paten' procedure prior to the elevation, one had to be careful not to sit next to any of these Protestant lasses, so as to avoid being required to offer them Holy Communion...

To have refused to offer them Communion, or even to have complained of the danger of them trying to receive, would have been one of the fastest tracks right out of the seminary door. Choosing to miss the weekly 'group Mass' would also have quickly become a damaging 'formation issue'.

During those Masses I always knelt for the Consecration regardless of the consequences. Send me home if you like, Jim but, whilst I could just about square bowing toward the altar, lying back on a beanbag was just not on!

Eventually, I was made a sacristan and then head sacristan the following year. This was a brutal crucifixion which included untold difficulties when I discovered that particles of the powdery Blessed Sacrament were literally everywhere.

During that time, I asked the priest in charge of liturgy several times to change to the regular white hosts used by the Universal Church in order to avoid the grave problem of large crumbling fragments. He was not interested because he said I was being 'too scrupulous' and claimed that the "Since Vatican II, bread used at Mass must look like real food".

I could write a book about the problems that I experienced in that sacristy. Basically, I experienced many months of bullying and mockery for trying to gather up the myriad of crumbs of the Blessed Sacrament after each Holy Mass.

Two incidents will have to suffice as illustrations in the limited space here: A non-Consecrated altar bread was once mopped around a paten containing Consecrated crumbs of the Blessed Sacrament by an aggressive seminarian who then thrust the results in my face with the snarled words, "Start eating!"

Another time a priest on the staff discovered me and my late friend Fr. Mike Williams checking a corporal cloth for crumbs in the sacristy after an evening Mass. He came up and scoffed, "Are you checking for crumbs there? What are you going to do when you find them? Take them up to your room and worship them?"

Although it is 17 years since I left Ushaw, I have experienced periods of intense interior anguish every single day since then, with regards to the treatment of the Blessed Sacrament in that place.

I had finally crashed and burned when we were forced to attend a silent retreat led by liberal priests and nuns. One priest sneered when he consecrated the Blessed Sacrament, throwing down the Host and crashing down the Chalice with a sneer each time during his Mass. This fellow, dressed in lay clothes and without any genuflection, also similarly crashed down a Monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament when he was asked by some of the lads to let us have Adoration during the 'retreat'.

Something broke inside me during that guy's Mass and, although I lasted at Ushaw another 6 months, that was the point at which I know that I lost my vocation and began to suffer terribly in the mind. These are very painful things for me to write here, things I have only shared with my dear wife, family, close friends and spiritual directors, but I now think the urgency of the times demand it.

Several years ago, Ushaw College closed its doors as a seminary due to an unsurprising lack of vocations. I've written elsewhere about orthodox students being persecuted for their orthodoxy in classes and so-called spiritual direction sessions; and of others who were prevented from even joining the seminary by dissenting liberals who grilled them on their selection weekends for admitting to their belief in the hierarchical nature of the Church, expressing their pro-life views or acknowledging their acceptance of Humanae Vitae.


The above picture of a Traditional Latin Mass being offered in one of the small chapels at Ushaw was taken during a Latin Mass training weekend of the Latin Mass Society, in the year that Ushaw ceased to be a seminary. Such beautiful events would never have been allowed to happen when I was there as a seminarian.

Indeed, these very chapels used to be used as store rooms for music stands, mops and buckets. I know, because I often used to pray silently in them after Mass on Sundays. Whilst Masses were regularly offered on coffee tables in bedrooms, lounges and even in the bar, these splendid chapels stood empty for years.

One of my good friends was described as being 'dangerous' by a leftist nun, when he suggested in her presence that Holy Mass should be offered on one of these altars instead of on a circular coffee table in a lounge.

'Animators of lay leadership'
In my first term at Ushaw, the priest-leader came in to our classroom one day and demanded to know our views about having a 'Mass-free ecumenical day' to "celebrate the Millennium". Realizing the danger to our vocations if we crossed swords with him, most of the class remained silent. He then demanded a response from each of us.

One student attempted to give an academic response, by speaking hypothetically in the third party. This priest then countered that he was not interested in such academic opinions, but in how his suggestion made us feel emotionally.

When we had all had to answer, mainly in defence of the Mass, this priest-leader gave us an angry lecture about 'sectarianism'. He said that in 'true ecumenism' we do not just go off and do our own 'little Catholic bit'. He was speaking about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...

The following weekend, this priest used his homily at the main college Sunday Mass to berate our year group in front of the whole college body for supposedly holding 'sectarian views'.

We had given up our whole lives, with good friends, careers and financial security, for the Holy Mass and here we were being persecuted for that love by those who were supposed to be forming us to offer the Mass!

In such an environment, orthodox lads quickly learned to keep their heads down. In fact, they were told to do so by everyone from orthodox priests, to prayerful nuns and on to their own friends and families.

This 'keeping your head down' business has allowed the evil in the Church to flourish for at least five decades now. It has got to stop.

Even after several years in the place, vocations could be thwarted at the very last minute. I know a good lad whose ordination was delayed 6-months just because he wore clerical dress on Sundays and to visit the sick!

A few months before diaconate ordination, students could suddenly be required to join engaged couples on a pre-marriage course, wherein leaders were speaking against the Church's teachings on contraception.

Other times, just weeks before priestly ordination, they might be required to attend a Mass where a priest would share the altar with a woman vicar 'saying' her eucharist prayers alongside him in a kind of mock concelebration. In both these cases the student would face a grave moral dilemma - stand up for the Faith or lose their chance to be ordained after so many years.

This all ties in to my recent article referencing Hilary White's comments about a [Bergoglian] purge making it impossible for seminarians to get ordained unless they compromise with the desecration of the Holy Eucharist...

You never knew what was going to happen to you next. I was on two separate occasions made to consume literally dozens of Consecrated Hosts in the Sacristy. These experiences have caused me immense psychological trauma for many years.

The above-mentioned priest-leader who so publicly scolded us for upholding the celebration of Mass for the Millennium also took us for a course of study on Pastores Dabo Vobis, the apostolic exhortation on priestly formation.

Unfortunately, the content of his course did not include much of the actual content of the document! Instead, we were told that our future job as priests would be to act as 'animators''working to 'empower the laity''in taking over the leadership and decision-making in the Church. He suggested that the hierarchical model of the Church was to be replaced by one of lay leadership at the local level.

Again, I've written elsewhere how various priests and laity, who were back-then helping to create a vocations shortage, have since gone on to take on leadership roles in dioceses where they now work to bring on lay leadership in parishes, due to the supposed lack of priests!

Archbishop Elden F. Curtiss of Omaha, Nebraska, was not wrong when he suggested that the vocations crisis was engineered by dissenting liberals.

In our own area, as in so many others in the devastated vineyard of post-Conciliar Catholicism, there are many parishes with aging leftist lay women running things and pushing on with their lay-led 'model of church'. And this goes on even as parishes continue to shrink and close.

'Facilitators at the Eucharistic assembly meal'
St. Robert Bellarmine once said:

When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except for a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God.

The good saint could have been describing that Protestant pastor in 80s Merseyside!


The above picture was taken during the training weekend of the Latin Mass Society at Ushaw College in 2011. The image shows the majestic High Altar in St. Cuthbert's chapel being used for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, as it was originally intended, after years of standing unloved and neglected.

When I was at Ushaw, this sanctuary area was actually fenced off by ornate black and gold metalwork. On those occasions when there were sufficient visitors to permit Holy Mass in St. Cuthbert's chapel, the fenced-off High Altar was never used. In fact priests walked past the grand Tabernacle without even a single genuflection.

Instead, Mass was celebrated on a low table-style altar standing on the un-raised chapel floor between the collegiate seating area in the main body of the church. More often, the Mass was offered in the small St. Joseph's chapel or on the coffee tables I have described above.

Conclusion
In all that has been written here, I have tried to convey the reality of a dynamic that was working to force out students who held that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was just that.

Students who tried to live from the traditional conception of the Church, the Holy Mass, the priesthood and Catholic moral teaching, experienced bullying, mockery, psychological pressure and ultimate exclusion.

On the other hand, those who viewed the Church as a kind of social-working NGO, the priesthood as a vehicle for therapeutic counselling, and the Mass as a community meal facilitated by their entertainment skills, were generally given encouragement towards ordination.

Certainly, lads who enjoyed lying on a beanbag for Mass, because "it felt like the Last Supper with Jesus and His friends", would have little problem with the new order of irreverence.

How ironic that the Lutheran free-church pastor on Merseyside thought seminarians became spiritually dead because of their love for the Mass!

How scary that the theology of those leading the seminary seemed closer to his understanding than to that of Catholic Truth!

Indeed, I would say that he was actually closer to Catholic Truth than them because he at least believed that Christ was our Divine Saviour, Who died to save us from our sins. With some of the staff and students, I am not so sure that they even believed this.

In all that has been said here, who can fail to discern the horrid words of the excommunicated heretic Martin Luther echoing down to our times, "Take away the Mass, and you destroy the Church"?

Pope Francis has just appointed the publicly sacrilegious priest Fr. Oscar Eduardo Minarro to the episcopate. In a few weeks Francis will travel to Lund to actually celebrate that same excommunicated heretic Martin Luther.

What we are witnessing seems to be nothing less than the latter stages of Satan's war on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The most grave warnings of St. Pope Pius X a century ago are now upon us!

St. Padre Pio, that great priest whose whole existence was mystically transfigured by the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, once said that it would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to survive without the Holy Mass.

May he help us to remain with Jesus, Our Lady, the True Faith and the most august Sacrifice of the Mass in the days ahead.


It's worth checking the last book in the Bible - we know that God wins in the end!
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 04:25


This, too, is Bergoglian Magisterium!

Last Sunday, JMB gave a homily to thousands of catechists who came to Rome from around the world to celebrate their Jubilee - a homily in which he said some strange, disconcerting and inappropriate words, as follows:

It is by loving that the God-who-is-Love is proclaimed to the world: not by the power of convincing, never by imposing the truth [Really????], no less by growing fixated on some religious or moral obligation.

God is proclaimed through the encounter between persons, with care for their history and their journey [True, but that is not catechism at all, in the sense that these catechists must catechize: they have to do catechize literally - teach the essentials of the faith in a systematic way, that is their job - while of course, being careful to practice what they teach!]

This is a valuable teaching: as servants of the word of Jesus we have been called not to parade our appearances and not to seek for glory [It's the first time I have read any such comment on catechists, who certainly are not in their work 'to parade their appearance or to seek glory', because in the first place, the circumstances of catechizing others seriously exclude such illusions!]; nor can we be sad or full of complaints. We are not prophets of gloom who take delight in unearthing dangers or deviations; we are not people who become ensconced in our own surroundings, handing out bitter judgments on our society, on the Church, on everything and everyone, polluting the world with our negativity. [Hmmm, has he listened to his own homilies at Casa Santa Marta, and even this particular paragraph of his homily? As Socrates wisely advised, 'Know thyself!"]


TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 20:16


The fact that the New York Times even ran the following piece at all is surely an indicator that even they are seeing the Bergoglio
giga-balloon deflating.
Matthew Schmitz is literary editor of FIRST THINGS... I do take issue with the tense of the title. JMB continues
to be pope, and things can theoretically change for the better in this papacy (though perhaps not in anyone's wildest dreams, least of all of
orthodox Catholics), but the tense should be present progressive, "Is Pope Francis failing?", by the standards of the media, that is,
which is that of 'the world'. But by the standards of the Church, as late as Vatican II, the pope is supposed to be "the perpetual and visible
source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful", who, in "preaching the Gospel of
God to all men
...preserves the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles...and confirms his brethren in the faith"
,
he fails each of the criteria mentioned.


Has Pope Francis failed?
By MATTHEW SCHMITZ

SEPT. 28, 2016

When Pope Francis ascended to the chair of St. Peter in March 2013, the world looked on in wonder. Here at last was a pope in line with the times, a man who preferred spontaneous gestures to ritual forms. Francis paid his own hotel bill and eschewed the red shoes. Rather than move into the grand papal apartments, he settled in the cozy guesthouse for visitors to the Vatican. He also set a new non-dogmatic tone with statements like “Who am I to judge?” [That is not non-dogmatic. It is worse than dogmatic - it is ideological, very contemporary and secular.]

Observers predicted that the new pope’s warmth, humility and charisma would prompt a “Francis effect” — bringing disaffected Catholics back to a church that would no longer seem so forbidding and cold. Three years into his papacy, the predictions continue. Last winter, Austen Ivereigh, the author of an excellent biography of Pope Francis, wrote that the pope’s softer stance on communion for the divorced and remarried “could trigger a return to parishes on a large scale.” In its early days, Francis’s Jesuit order labored to bring Protestants back into the fold of the church. Could Francis do the same for Catholics tired of headlines about child abuse and culture wars?

In a certain sense, things have changed. Perceptions of the papacy, or at least of the pope, have improved. Francis is far more popular than his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. Sixty-three percent of American Catholics approve of him, while only 43 percent approved of Benedict at the height of his popularity, according to a 2015 New York Times and CBS News poll. [How can a 2015 poll be cited to show Benedict XVI's approval rating 'at the height of his popularity'? It is distressing when someone like Schmitz simply regurgitates data like this without examining it! At the height of his popularity in the USA, which was after his apostolic visit in 2008,a Pew survey gave him an 82% approval rating.]

Francis has also placed a great emphasis on reaching out to disaffected Catholics.
[How exactly has he done that? Other than hoping to ride on his phenomenal popularity and its putatively positive - but so far unregistered, except perhaps negatively - 'Bergoglio effect', has he had any specific program at all to do that like the 'Catholics Come Home' initiative in the USA, which predated him???]

But are Catholics actually coming back? In the United States, at least, it hasn’t happened. New survey findings from Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate suggest that there has been no Francis effect — at least, no positive one. In 2008, 23 percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week. Eight years later, weekly Mass attendance has held steady or marginally declined, at 22 percent.

Of course, the United States is only one part of a global church. But the researchers at Georgetown found that certain types of religious observance are weaker now among young Catholics than they were under Benedict. In 2008, 50 percent of millennials reported receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, and 46 percent said they made some sacrifice beyond abstaining from meat on Fridays. This year, only 41 percent reported receiving ashes and only 36 percent said they made an extra sacrifice, according to CARA. In spite of Francis’s personal popularity, young people seem to be drifting away from the faith.

Why hasn’t the pope’s popularity reinvigorated the church? Perhaps it is too soon to judge. We probably won’t have a full measure of any Francis effect until the church is run by bishops appointed by Francis and priests who adopt his pastoral approach. This will take years or decades. [My God!, and that is a serious cry to the Lord, not merely an expression, save your Church from the unimaginably disastrous cumulative Bergoglio effect by then - which would be a de facto replacement of the one true Church of Christ with the church of Bergoglio.]

Yet something more fundamental may stand in the way of a Francis effect. Francis is a Jesuit, and like many members of Catholic religious orders, he tends to view the institutional church, with its parishes and dioceses and settled ways, as an obstacle to reform.
- He describes parish priests as “little monsters” who “throw stones” at poor sinners.
- He has given curial officials a diagnosis of “spiritual Alzheimer’s.”
- He scolds pro-life activists for their “obsession” with abortion. - He has said that Catholics who place an emphasis on attending Mass, frequenting confession, and saying traditional prayers are “Pelagians” — people who believe, heretically, that they can be saved by their own works.


Such denunciations demoralize faithful Catholics without giving the disaffected any reason to return. Why join a church whose priests are little monsters and whose members like to throw stones? When the pope himself stresses internal spiritual states over ritual observance, there is little reason to line up for confession or wake up for Mass.

Even Francis's most ardent fans worry that his agenda is overdue. When he was elected, Francis promised a cleanup of the Vatican’s corrupt finances. Three years on, he has started to retreat in the face of opposition, giving up an outside audit and taking powers away from his handpicked point man.

Francis has also shied away from big changes on doctrinal matters. Instead of explicitly endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried couples, he has quietly urged them on with a wink and a nod.

Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads. Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. [That was exactly the pope we had before this one!]

Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.


Carl Olson picks up from Schmitz:

'Francis has built his popularity
at the expense of the church he leads'

by Carl Olson
Editor

September 28, 2016

The September 28th edition of The New York Times contains an op-ed by Matthew Schmitz, literary editor of First Things, which poses the question "Has Pope Francis Failed?" — and then makes a succinct and pointed argument for a fairly resounding "Yes." Schmitz's focus is on the famous but increasingly hazy "Francis effect":

Observers predicted that the new pope’s warmth, humility and charisma would prompt a “Francis effect” — bringing disaffected Catholics back to a church that would no longer seem so forbidding and cold. Three years into his papacy, the predictions continue. Last winter, Austen Ivereigh, the author of an excellent biography of Pope Francis, wrote that the pope’s softer stance on communion for the divorced and remarried “could trigger a return to parishes on a large scale.” In its early days, Francis’ Jesuit order labored to bring Protestants back into the fold of the church. Could Francis do the same for Catholics tired of headlines about child abuse and culture wars?


Schmitz says that perceptions "of the papacy, or at least of the pope, have improved." Francis is, here in the U.S., more popular than his his predecessor: "Sixty-three percent of American Catholics approve of him, while only 43 percent approved of Benedict at the height of his popularity, according to a 2015 New York Times and CBS News poll. Francis has also placed a great emphasis on reaching out to disaffected Catholics."

But, Schmitz asks, "are Catholics actually coming back?" His negative answer to that question is based on the results of a recent survey from Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate suggesting "there has been no Francis effect — at least, no positive one. In 2008, 23 percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week. Eight years later, weekly Mass attendance has held steady or marginally declined, at 22 percent."

In addition, religious observance among younger Catholics has taken a notable turn for the worse:

In 2008, 50 percent of millennials reported receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, and 46 percent said they made some sacrifice beyond abstaining from meat on Fridays. This year, only 41 percent reported receiving ashes and only 36 percent said they made an extra sacrifice, according to CARA. In spite of Francis’ personal popularity, young people seem to be drifting away from the faith.


We can also note that the attendance numbers for papal events in Rome have not been on the rise, with a precipitous drop from 2014 to 2015 in the number of people at general audiences, Angelus, and other events. Numbers, of course, only tell part of the story, and they are not, ultimately, the primary indicator of faithfulness, fidelity, and witness. But the second part of Schmitz's essay is not about numbers, but about the specific tone, approach, and vision of Francis for the Church:

Francis is a Jesuit, and like many members of Catholic religious orders, he tends to view the institutional church, with its parishes and dioceses and settled ways, as an obstacle to reform. He describes parish priests as “little monsters” who “throw stones” at poor sinners. He has given curial officials a diagnosis of “spiritual Alzheimer’s.” He scolds pro-life activists for their “obsession” with abortion. He has said that Catholics who place an emphasis on attending Mass, frequenting confession, and saying traditional prayers are “Pelagians” — people who believe, heretically, that they can be saved by their own works.


Schmitz can only touch on some of these matters in passing, but those of us who have been following this papacy closely from the start know how the past three years have witnessed a steady stream of confusion, hyperbole, "ambiguities, inconsistencies, mixed messages, imprecisions, thinly veiled insults" — not to mention the odd use and misuse of language in the service of more confusion.

"Such denunciations," Schmitz insists, "demoralize faithful Catholics without giving the disaffected any reason to return." I agree. And reading some of the comments left at Schmitz's op-ed only reinforces the overall impression that Francis is mostly liked and lauded by those who see his pontificate as the start of a revolution overthrowing the usual litany of criticisms tossed at the Church: it is too patriarchal, rigid, narrow-minded, moralistic, judgmental, bigoted, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc., etc.

Yes, there are Catholics who are upset and even angry at Francis, but the overwhelming response, in my experience, is simply, "What is he doing? And why?"

These are legitimate and good questions. As veteran Vatican journalist John Allen, Jr., mused in a recent Crux feature:

Towards the end of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s document on the family, the pontiff writes that when priests have to make judgments in concrete cases such as pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, they are to do so “according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.” One wonders if he knew at the time just what a conflicting welter of responses that injunction would elicit.


As Allen correctly notes, since the Apostolic Exhortation was released this past spring, "various bishops and groups of bishops around the world have issued guidelines for its implementation, and surveying the landscape, it’s abundantly clear they’re not all saying the same thing."

Put simply: if Francis knew that confusion would result, then we have to wonder at his motives, especially in light of his scathing address at the end of the 2015 Synod. After all, the papacy is supposed to be a clear sign and source of unity, even if the matters addressed are sometimes complex and difficult. And if he didn't suspect that his 55,000 word document would elicit consternation and wildly differing interpretations, then we have to wonder about his foresightedness and prudence. [But it is all by Bergoglian design! What pope mindful of his task to promote and preserve unity in the Church would urge the faithful to 'Haga lio!', as he has done on many occasions? The answer is: A pope who continually makes a mess himself 1) by deliberately causing confusion about Church teaching and 2) by directly insulting Catholics who do not think and behave as he wants members of the church of Bergoglio should behave, while making nice with everyone else, including Islamist terrorists who he refuses to name as such.]

No Catholic should ever be surprised that there is discord and fighting within the Church, but they should be bothered when a pope is so often at the middle of constant conflict, and when that conflict is so often originating in his own perplexing words and actions. Put another way, this is not like dissenting Catholics raging against John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor, which was quite clear in its denunciation of flawed understandings of moral doctrine; rather, it is the unease and bewilderment of Catholics who know or suspect that accomodation, compromise, and sentimentality disguised as "pastoral" kindness are not good for the Church or the world. As I wrote earlier this month:

... I am increasingly convinced that this papacy, for all of its strengths, weaknesses, and oddities, could well be known, down the road, as the Papacy of Sentimentality. It surely is not a papacy adhering to theological rigor or consistency.

It wasn't long ago that Francis made news for telling some Polish Jesuits that "in life not all is black on white or white on black. No! The shades of grey prevail in life." But he is quite selective (and, I think, sentimental) in that regard.

When it comes to marriage, sexuality, and family, there are apparently numerous shades of grey and very little that is clearly black and white. Thus, references to "sin" are avoided. But when it comes to the environment and global warming, which Francis has strong emotions about, there appears to be plenty of black and white, and almost no grey at all.

"Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality," warned Benedict XVI, "Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way." Mercy is not something that can be redefined in an arbitrary way, however good or appealing the sentiment involved.


Meanwhile, back to Schmitz, who concludes:

Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads. Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.


Those are strong words. Is Francis trying to soften Church teaching? Personally, I see no way around that conclusion. After all, if Francis never meant to change or soften Church teaching, why the constant reliance on Cardinal Kasper and other Germans, the two Synods, the regular confusion, the jostling and posturing, the endless "gestures", the angry address at the conclusion of the 2015 Synod, the often tortured and purposeful ambiguity of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, and so forth?
[I don't know how anyone can still doubt that Jorge Bergoglio wants his church to be the church of Nice and Easy! Catholic-lite, if you will, but that is to demean the adjective 'Catholic'. No, it's not Catholic-lite, but Bergoglio-lite and ever lightening, one fears.]

Did Saint John Paul II, in numerous addresses and major documents, not give the Church enough to ponder and unpack about the meaning of marriage, sexuality, family, the feminine genius, and so many related matters? Has human nature changed so much in the past decade? Has Church teaching become outdated or "out of touch" in a matter of a few years? [Yes, Bergoglio's synodal henchman, Cardinal Baldisseri, said exactly that of Familiaris consortio, a 1981 document. It seems clear that to JMB and his Bergoglians [as in 'Luther and his Lutherans' (i.e., ex-Catholics)], anything the Church taught and practised before March 13, 2013, is outdated and out of touch.]

It is unfortunate — indeed, deeply painful — to see the confusion, turmoil, and frustration so often generated by the Barque of Peter, which should instead be providing solace, comfort, shelter, and clarity amid the dark waves of an increasingly antagonistic and volatile world.


The 'Francis Effect' discussed
in the New York Times

by Kenneth Wolfe

Sept. 28, 2016

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the papacy of Pope Francis is his unification of traditional Catholics and conservative Catholics.

What started as an uncivil war in March 2013 -- when traditional Catholic sources such as Rorate (which was intimately familiar with Cardinal Bergoglio's work in Argentina) predicted a massive shift to the left, only to be harshly criticized by many Catholic conservatives who blindly defended Bergoglio as one who would continue the incremental restoration of Pope Benedict XVI -- has grown to a point where both camps are now singing from the same Liber.
[But there are still quite a few 'normalists' (like Jeff Mirus) who had apparently finally opened their minds to this pope's insanities but who quickly revert to their faith in the rightness of Bergoglio despite having recognized the manifold faults of AL, which is simply - especially in its Chapter 8 - a compendium of the worst Bergoglian offenses against Catholic doctrine and practice.]

We have written of the 'Francis Effect' a few times, using data such as Pew Research Center's statistics on Mass attendance...Fast-forward to 2016.

Today's New York Times (yes, that is correct) provides an update on the 'Francis Effect' by an editor of First Things (yes, that is correct). Entitled "Has Pope Francis Failed?," the op-ed by Matthew Schmitz in today's print edition, also online, is worth a read.


For some reason, this poster - created at the time SP went into effect - was used to illustrate the Rorate caeli item. A general reminder, perhaps,
that one sure way to confirm, strengthen and inflame our faith is to go to Mass as often as we can, the traditional Mass, if possible, where we can do as Pope St. Pius X advised:

Don't pray at Holy Mass - pray the Holy Mass, the highest prayer that exists... You must pray with the priest the holy words said to him in the Name of Christ, and which Christ says through him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings that are contained in these words and in this manner, you ought to follow all that happens on the Altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass.


I must add Mundabor's commentary to the NYT Op-Ed piece. He questions Matthew Schmitz's Catholicism because of a number of statements and assumptions Schmitz makes - which are par for the course in today's journalism, even by Catholic journalists for whom their 'duty' to media always seems to override their Catholicism (whereas it is objective and journalistically mandatory to show both sides of any issue). But Mundabor has other worthwhile insights...

Even NYT writers start seeing
that Francis has failed


Sept. 29, 2016


[Great vignette! Short, sweet, says much!]


When was the last time you heard about the “Francis effect”? Yep, and you now know why: even the secular press knows it did not work.

The article is, as you would expect by a libtard publication like the NYT – the author works for “First Things”, though; more about this later – entirely centered around secular issues. In line with the forma mentis of your average IYI (“Intellectual Yet Idiot”) reader, the Church is seen like a party, or a product, or a firm: where an “innovator” who seems “in line with the times” steps in and “revitalises” the ailing organisation. And this leader does such wonderful things as living in a luxury hotel, wearing black shoes, shooting selfies, and other such like stupid things very much liked by a stupid age.

The article, showing the great ignorance of this author in matters of Catholicism, (but we are talking of Libtards here) even absurdly criticises the Pope because "Francis has also shied away from big changes on doctrinal matters. Instead of explicitly endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried couples, he has quietly urged them on with a wink and a nod".

The secular mind sees the secular Pope at work; it sees him trying to make of the Church something similar to the Democratic Party; it sees, also, that he is failing miserably.

The secular mind cannot understand the Church more than the devil can like holy water. They just do not get that the Church – as an organisation – prospers when she opposes the world, and withers when she cozies up with it.

If they knew this simple truth, they would never invent strange and absurd expressions like the “Francis effect” and mean that it would be good for the Church as an organisation.


The Catholic mind understands the folly of all this. But hey, they are “homophobic”, so they don’t count.

As the author points out, very rightly, Francis has failed miserably even in the other – and originally, we were told, the most important – reason for his appointment: the reorganisation of the inefficient, corrupt Vatican apparatus. We knew that already, because we know that South American dictators tend to be extremely stupid wreckers of everything they touch. But it’ s nice to see that some libtard notices that, too.

However, the obviously Catholicism-free author must have heard, at some point, something about Catholicism at First Things, because he seems to have a very confused idea of how the Church works. Examining the cause of the continuing decomposition of the Church in the US, he writes something that has always been a mainstay of this little effort:"Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads."

The cult of man damages the Church of God. Francis, in his vanity and folly, presents himself as the good guy in opposition to the bad guys of the sixty generations before his. It can work for him, for a while, until people understand what a phony the man is. But it will never be any good for the Church. This is now apparent, and the “Francis effect” thingy has gone the way of “reading Francis through Benedict”.

The author, who is so blind that he sees something positive in Francis “paying his own hotel bill” and “eschewing the red shoes”, still has some ideas left of what Catholicism is:

Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.


So, is this author Catholic after all, and just too servile to the NYT to write like one? I don’t know, and I am not interested to know. What interests me here is that even the entirely secular outlook of this article must see Francis’s dismal failure.

The Church is the enemy of the world. Francis is the friend of the world. Francis is the enemy of the Church.

And he has failed. Even libtards see it now.


[But there are two levels of failure here: this pope obviously has failed the Church. But the libtards don't see it that way. They cheer that he has failed the Church by rendering her doctrine and discipline fluid in order to conform with the world. But they see that his secular agenda - despite the priority he gives it over what ought to be his only agenda, his spiritual mission as pope - is not prospering beyond slogans and headline-generating platitudes, for the simple reason that all earthly utopias are bound to be unachievable.('Utopia' means 'no place'.) So in that sense, they find him failing - failing to parlay his popularity and his papal authority into concrete measures that will even begin to end hunger, poverty and war, or cause all intending immigrants to be miraculously resettled in host countries where they will be getting more perks than the disadvantaged citizens of those countries themselves.]

Even Libtards see it now.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 22:56


German Catholics who think the way most of their bishops do will never understand Benedict XVI because they do not wish to understand anyone who is in polar opposition to their views...

Pope Benedict is still
misunderstood in Germany

But 'Letzte Gespraeche' is #1 on the Der Spiegel bestseller list

by MARIE MEANEY

September 29, 2016

In Germany, reality and media-hype are worlds apart when it comes to Pope Benedict’s latest book-length interview called Last Conversations (Letzte Gespräche) in German (and Last Testament in English).

Accused of lacking tact, of wanting to interpret his own pontificate when this should be left to others, and of bashing the German hierarchy when he was himself part of the system are a few of the accusations leveled against Benedict by the Jesuit Andreas Batlogg, editor of the progressive journal Stimmen der Zeit (Voices of the Time). Readers of Last Conversations will conclude that Stimmen der Zeit is more concerned with following the Zeitgeist than preaching religious truth.

Benedict’s simplicity and humility shine through this interview conducted by Peter Seewald. He is not defending himself, but reminiscing, explaining, responding very simply to Seewald’s questions. Originally, these conversations, initiated at the end of his pontificate (though held mostly afterwards), were meant to help Seewald write Ratzinger’s biography. Only after Seewald secured the approval of Benedict and Pope Francis were these revealing interviews published.

Many faithful were shocked, bewildered, and saddened by his announcement that he would abdicate the throne of Peter. It went against centuries of Church practice and seemed to contradict the shining example of St. John Paul II the Great who revealed in his final years the significance of suffering. It was therefore mainly the progressives, for whom Ratzinger had been a thorn in the side, who applauded his decision.

But, contrary to speculations, it was not Vatileaks, the Williamson affair or any of the other scandals [Another well-meaning soul assuming the media's false assumptions: What 'other scandals'? If there was any that was a genuine scandal, it would have been named along with the faux-scandalous Vatileaks and Williamson case, but nothing else is named!] that led Benedict to abdicate.

On the contrary, he insists one should not leave when things are unresolved or at their worst. The reason for his decision was declining health. His energy was on the wane and he felt he could no longer shouldering the heavy burdens of his office. Of course, as he admits, the office of Peter is not merely about executing duties. It enters into one’s being. At the same time, he felt incapable of dealing anymore with day-to-day business.

He sees his vocation differently than John Paul II. Benedict is confident he made the right decision. For somebody who acted fearlessly during his whole life, speaking of the ills of his time whether opportune or not, it would have been out of character to become suddenly pusillanimous. God is the center of his life, and in his heart of hearts, it was clear to him that God not only allowed him to leave, but that it was his duty.

Ratzinger spoke with a prophetic voice his entire life. First, he was rebutted by the conservatives for that reason, and later by the liberals. This is a good indication that truth has always been his guiding-light, rather than the factions of right or left that tend to overlook either the ever-fresh newness of God’s revelation or its timelessness.

In 1958, for example, he published the article “Die neuen Heiden und die Kirche” (“The New Pagans and the Church”) where he spoke about the spreading loss of faith despite a seemingly blooming Church. Though he was simply seeing the signs of the time, the article was viewed as heretical by some, while his colleagues in Freising were shocked and his nomination to the university of Bonn became jeopardized.

On the other hand, his beautiful speech in Freiburg in 2011 was heavily criticized by progressives since he was asking the German church to shed its worldliness, its emphasis on institutions and conventions in order to open itself anew to the call of Christ. It could not have been said in a gentler way, quoting Mother Teresa that what needs to change in the Church is “you and me.”

And yet, it was received badly. The pope wasn’t telling the Church to abandon its wealth, or that it was squandering its money (the extensive national and international charitable outreach of the Church in Germany is very generous). Instead, he wanted a change of heart.

In contrast, Pope Francis was applauded when he called for an end to careerism in the Church, probably because there is no negative prejudice against him from mainstream progressives.

Benedict is also spot-on in the Last Conversations when he speaks about the “union mentality” of Church bureaucrats and officials in Germany who simply view themselves as mere employees working for a paycheck. That the uproar is so great even from the progressive lay-organization of German Catholics, Zentralkommittee deutscher Katholiken [the infamous ZDK], shows that he hit a sore spot, as Archbishop Gänswein pointed out in his defense of the book.

As Seewald points out, Hans Küng was the source of bad press that Ratzinger received following the Vatican Council. They were first colleagues and even collaborators, until Ratzinger realized that Küng no longer saw theology as the means by which Catholic beliefs are explained and defended. Though Ratzinger was not behind the latter losing his mandatum (i.e., his permit to teach at ecclesiastical institutions), he became a target of Küng’s ire. [This happened before Ratzinger came to the CDF.]

When Ratzinger left his position as archbishop of Munich in order to become prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), he was still loved and respected in Germany; after all, he had been a star-theologian of Germany and a good bishop. His reputation changed following a relentless campaign of slander by the press.

We also learn from the book that Benedict’s approach to decentralization mirrors that of Pope Francis, Benedict working towards a greater interaction between the local church and Rome, and only intervened when things were going in the wrong direction.[Since Benedict came ahead, he cannot be mirroring his successor! But that statement on decentralization is also misleading, because what Benedict wished to decentralize only had to do with routine administration, not doctrinal authority as his successor wants.]

He clearly has German bishops in mind when he says that many prelates who opposed decentralization lacked real initiative, probably because their priority was merely to embrace the progressive agenda. Going with the Zeitgeist made the German church conventional and mediocre, instead of emanating the refreshing challenge of holiness.

Ratzinger has always been a man inspired by the timeless newness of the truth. He was deeply formed by the personalism of his day, inspired by Henri de Lubac and von Balthasar to shed the moralistic narrowness of nineteenth century spirituality, advocating a return to the early Church Fathers, opposed to clericalism and seeing the second Vatican Council as an important means of renewing the Church, while opposing the abuses that followed.

But no matter what his critics say, Ratzinger has left a great legacy behind as an author, a pope and a man, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one day he is made a doctor of the Church.


The personal spiritual journey of Seewald makes him uniquely qualified to ask the important questions. He had left the Church in 1973, had become a Marxist and worked for a number of left-wing journals before interviewing Ratzinger in the 1990s, then finally re-entering the Church. His profound understanding of Benedict and Catholicism, as the preface demonstrates, shows that he learned a great deal from his lifetime of experiences.

David Berger, who had gone from being a famous Thomistic, conservative German theologian to outing himself as homosexual in 2010 and criticizing Benedict vociferously, has now come to regret his attacks.

Interestingly, he admits that the press at the time would have eagerly published anything he said against the pope. When a prominent journal invited Berger to criticize Last Conversations, he refused to do so, expressing his esteem for the pope emeritus. The very fact that this book is number one on the best-seller list of the news magazine Der Spiegel is reason for hope.

When reading this book, one is struck by Benedict’s holiness and humility, his serene acceptance of harsh attacks, and his simplicity. Readers will be able to tell that his faith and trust in God is childlike, rather than naïve, because he has weathered many storms. He is not the caricatured inquisitor who arrogantly claims to own the truth, but somebody who knows that “the truth possesses us and has touched us.”

He has now arrived at the threshold of eternity, ready for the loving embrace of the Father. He is, as Seewald formulates it, “in silence and prayer, in the heart of the faith.” This last glimpse into the heart and mind of this holy man can nourish us on our journey during these troubled times in the Church and in the world.

Marie Meaney received her doctorate and an M. Phil. in Modern Languages from the University of Oxford. She is the author of Simone Weil’s Apologetic Use of Literature: Her Christological Interpretations of Classic Greek Texts (Oxford University Press, 2007). Her booklet Embracing the Cross of Infertility (HLI) has also appeared in Spanish, German, Hungarian and Croatian. Before the birth of her daughter, she was a teaching fellow at Villanova University.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 29 settembre 2016 23:54
Forgive the digression: You want weird? Here's really far-out weird! Welcome to the world we live in! The husband in this case was once female, and the wife once male. But since neither underwent corrective surgery - presumably their genitals remained what they were born with - the husband became pregnant and went on to deliver a baby boy.

Transgender man becomes first
to have a baby with a transgender female

Not unusual really, because they never had corrective surgery, except
that it was the husband (born female) who conceived and delivered

By LAURA MOWAT

Sept. 28, 2016

A transgender couple has become the first to have their own child after the man gave birth to their baby. The couple were able to have a baby because neither had undergone corrective surgery.

Fernando Machado, who used to be a woman, met Diane Rodriguez, who used to be a man, on social media two years ago and started a relationship. [Biologically and in their primaary sex characteristics, Machado remains female and Rodriguez remains male! Otherwise, their coupling would be sterile.]

Ms Rodriguez made headlines in Ecuador in 2013 when she was the first transgender candidate to run for Government.

[If there was no corrective surgery (i.e., they both retain the sex organs they were born with), then presumably the gender 'transformation' was done only through hormones - pumping the woman with male hormones so she took on secondary male characteristics, and the man with female hormones so she took on secondary female characteristics. But the hormonal treatments would have had to stop on the female-now-male to enable 'him' to conceive a baby and nurture the fetus to term.

Indeed, the pictures of the pregnant Machado show him with feminine features without facial hair and with breasts appropriately enlarged in a pregnant woman.]


Ms Rodriguez, who was born a man named Luis, said: "We don't have a name yet, or rather we do, we are just waiting to announce it. Being a mother was never something I thought I could do because I am a transsexual." [But still remains female!]

The new parents have previously spoken of her struggle after coming out to her family about her sex change.

Ms Rodriguez said: “We live as man and woman. I’m a transgendered woman and Fernando is a transgendered man. The process to get here was complex for each of us. Knowing it's our right, we decided to add another member to our family.”

Mr Machado said that when he discovered he was pregnant, he “started crying with happiness, fear and dread”.

He said: ”I had never felt like that before. Wow, at last, I am completely happy.”
TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 30 settembre 2016 04:36
The above is from the complementary video to the Letter Appeal of the 45 with some of the signatories speaking out.


Some of 45 signatories feeling the heat
over letter urging clarification of AL



September 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Some of the scholars who sent an appeal to the 218 Cardinals and patriarchs are under fire for urging them to appeal to the pope for corrective measures to clarify “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals” in Amoris Laetitia.

A few weeks ago, a letter from Pope Francis surfaced that expressed the Holy Father’s support to the bishops of the Buenos Aires, Argentina, pastoral region that read: “No other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia is valid, consequently allowing the distribution of Holy Communion to divorced/remarried (Catholics) in some cases — certainly one of the hot topics in question.

Many of the signatories of the scholarly appeal remain anonymous to protect their reputation and jobs. Yet some are suffering pressure for their attempt to stay faithful to Church teaching and tradition.

LifeSiteNews has gathered information – confirmed by several of the signatories, including the spokesperson, Dr. Joseph Shaw – that one signatory, who is well known internationally, has lost his position as director of academic affairs at a Pontifical university.

Another was threatened by his bishop that his academic sabbatical would be canceled, but he has found another bishop willing to allow him to begin the process of incardination in his diocese.

Yet another has been forbidden to speak publicly about Amoris Laetitia, and another has been told to rescind his signature.

And a Cardinal put pressure on one of the signatories to withdraw his name.

Two clear conclusions can be drawn:
First, many of the suffering parties are under pressure not by remote institutions but by high-ranking individuals in the hierarchy. Second, the scholars’ document has opened the discussion to a wider public and has given rise to similar demands by individuals and groups.

In an earlier interview regarding the intention of the appeal, Shaw explained: “It is our hope that by seeking from our Holy Father a definitive repudiation of these errors we can help to allay the confusion already brought about by Amoris Laetitia among pastors and the lay faithful, for that confusion can be dispelled effectively only by an unambiguous affirmation of authentic Catholic teaching by the Successor of Peter.”

Regarding the persecution of the signatories, Shaw told LifeSiteNews on September 27: “It is distressing to hear of people, particularly clergy, suffering because they have signed this letter. It was, after all, a private letter to prelates expressing, without rancor or accusations, a request for clarification about questions the objective theological difficulties of which are acknowledged right across the spectrum of opinion. It is particularly disappointing to see Catholics in positions of authority who regard themselves as supporters of the Holy Father, not simply ignoring his repeated calls for parrhesia — fearless and candid discussion — but actively seeking to suppress it.”


Amid all this, of course, is that risible 'soundbite' from the smarmy Archbishop of Vienna, bewailing "I do not understand why there is so much resistance to Pope Francis!" - At least he acknowledges there is 'so much resistance' to his master. As kathpress.at (news agency of the Austrian bishops' conference) reported it:

Vienna (kath.net/KAP) Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has expressed shock at the resistance from Church circles against Pope Francis: "It hurts me that he faces so much hostility - within the Church. What is this? He is the successor of Peter! He's the pope!" said the Archbishop of Vienna on Tuesday in his homily during the Medjugorje prayer of peace, "Message for you" in the cathedral.

"Many people in the world are grateful for the witness of Pope Francis. For his kindness and his love for the poor and the fallen. It is the gospel that he teaches us," said Schönborn. [The Popes before him taught the Gospel. Whereas Bergoglio is teaching his own selective account of the Gospel with his selective interpretations.]

To learn that the Pope is receiving "so much resistance" from his own ranks, was completely incomprehensible to him. It is important to pray for the Pope, he said. [Oh yes, that he may stop inflicting so much harm on the Church and stop trying to set up the church of Bergoglio in place of the Church!]


TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 1 ottobre 2016 01:59


Here is an excellent analysis of what I would call the technical magisterial flaws of AL which necessarily concern its major flaws of content. It also answers Cardinal Schoenborn's shameless (yes, I will be using this adjective quite often for the smarmy cardinal's increasingly daring offenses against the very Catechism whose drafting he chaired) - and completely unpersuasive - defense of AL as a major act of papal magisterium...

The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, issued by Pope Francis at the close of two recent synods on the family, has stirred up more controversy than any other papal document of recent memory.

Commentators — both scholarly and popular — who favor a change in the Church’s view of the sacramental and spiritual status of Catholics living in illicit second marriages have hailed the document. Those seeking to uphold traditional Church discipline concerning the indissolubility of marriage have criticized the exhortation as ambiguous or worse.

Beyond the disputes over its substance (what does the document actually mean?) its supporters and detractors argue over its nature (what level of authority does the document command?). Because of the neuralgic issues at the heart of the document, neither controversy is likely to dissipate soon.

The seeming doctrinal difficulties presented by Al have been explored thoroughly in other articles, some of which have appeared in First Things. Such criticisms of a papal pronouncement inevitably spawn questions about its authoritative character. What sort of a document is this, and how are we to understand its authority? This itself is a contentious question.

In a recent interview, Cardinal Christof Schönborn, whom Pope Francis called “the most competent interpreter” of Al, made the case for the binding character of the document. When asked:


Some have spoken of AL as a minor document, a personal opinion of the Pope (so to speak) without full magisterial value. What value does this Exhortation possess? Is it an act of the magisterium?
The Cardinal responded:
It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is clear that the Pope is exercising here his role of pastor, of master and teacher of the faith, after having benefited from the consultation of the two Synods. I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina.

… There is no lack of passages in the Exhortation that affirm their doctrinal value strongly and decisively. This can be recognized from the tone and the content of what is said, when we relate these to the intention of the text – for example, when the Pope writes: “I urgently ask ...”, “It is no longer possible to say ...”, “I have wanted to present to the entire Church ...”, and so on.

AL is an act of the magisterium that makes the teaching of the Church present and relevant today. Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL.
[The chairman of the bishops' commission that drafted the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church has it egregiously and shamelessly backwards? (But then Schoenborn has been consistently shameless in his most outre deviations from orthodoxy!) When has the Church ever used a new document as the 'standard' by which to read previous documents? It isn't even logical.]


The Cardinal’s statement does not equivocate. It can be translated into four propositions.
First, AL is a binding document of the ordinary magisterium.
Second, it is meant to be universal in scope.
Third, it bears a doctrinal character.
Fourth, it is to be understood as an authentic interpretation of the deposit of the faith.


These assertions, if correct, are extremely consequential. Under settled doctrine, Catholics would be required to assent intellectually and submit their minds and wills to the pronouncements in the Exhortation. The Cardinal’s conclusions, however, do not withstand scrutiny in light of principles governing the interpretation of magisterial documents.

One does not need a Ph.D. in theology to discern areas in AL that are ambiguous and that have already led to multiple interpretations. Paragraph 299, for example, states that the divorced and remarried “need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church.” [To begin with the Code of Canon Law in force since 1983 has done away with excommunication as a penalty for RCDs - which is leniency more than enough! Besides, has any Catholic RCD ever presented any complaint, formal or anecdotal, that the local church has made him/her/them unwelcome in any way, shape or form? I do not recall reading any such complaint - and there probably is none, because since 'the world' started to treat divorce as routine, so have most of the ministers of the Church, not to mention the community itself - and anything routine does not raise any eyebrows or invite discrimination at all.]

Does this statement merely admonish censorious pew-sitters concerning the divorced and remarried, criticizing those who may treat them with judgment or disdain? Or does it suggest that one can be spiritually alive while in a state of continued objective mortal sin? Obviously, the latter interpretation, which has been expressly drawn by many, is more than problematic.

Another example of ambiguity in the document appears in Footnote 329: “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living as brothers and sisters which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.’”

Does the document maintain that the virtue of sexual continence leads to sin and to the endangerment of children, or does it merely underscore the difficulty of living in conformity to the Gospel in difficult situations? The correct interpretation of statements such as these is not clear. [The interpretations are not mutually exclusive and both were probably intended.]

Some positions in AL that are not ambiguous appear to imply the validity of positions that are contrary to the Church’s perennial teaching. In Paragraph 297, one finds: “No one is condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” Such a statement implies the non-existence of hell and even suggests dissimulation on the part of Christ, who preached about hell almost as much as heaven. [It's a direct expression of JMB's personal opinion, since although he mentions Hell once in a while, his cumulative statements about the eventual fate of unrepentant sinners is expressed in that line "No one is condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!" It took a lot of chutzpah for him and his ghosts to put in the statement as starkly as that, considering everything Jesus said about eternal damnation. See, it is in seemingly 'minor' statements like this that JMB is caught with his doctrinal pants down, because he obviously is careful to avoid such stark expressions of any of his other near-heretical statements impacting directly on whatever topic is on hand.]

Another example of implied error appears under the heading of “Accompanying, Discerning, Integrating Weakness” in paragraphs 296-299, where the document implies that sexual sins can admit a parvity of matter. One cannot overlook in this regard the much discussed Footnote 351, which many — including the Bishops of Argentina — have cited to support the reception of communion by divorced and remarried couples who have not accepted sexual continence.

Finally, some statements at least appear to contradict longstanding Church doctrine, whether formally defined teaching, the constant Tradition of the Church, or Scripture itself.
- Paragraph 159, for example, rejects the privileged status of perpetual continence.
- Paragraph 295 seems to doubt the sufficiency of grace to overcome human weakness.
- And Paragraph 301 suggests that those who act with full knowledge of grave matter are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin.

Given these difficulties, what is to be made of Cardinal Schönborn’s assertion that AL is a binding document of magisterial authority? His analysis is unpersuasive, for three principal reasons.

First, the document lacks language of formal definition. A clear example of language of formal definition appears in Ordinatio Sacradotalis, wherein Pope John Paul II uses words such as “We teach and declare” to define the Church’s teaching on the priesthood.

Contrast this with the language of AL highlighted by Cardinal Schönborn: “I urgently ask”; “It is no longer possible to say”; and “I have wanted to present to the entire Church.”

Second, AL lacks the theological and juridical precision of binding ecclesial documents, instead relying upon metaphors, imagery, and thick description, rather than clear statements.

And third, if, in fact, the document does contradict either natural or divine positive law, then it simply cannot bind the faithful to the obsequium religiosum, that is, the assent of mind and will, specified by Lumen Gentium 25.

The basic principles of the Church’s doctrine of infallibility provide substantive guidance here.

First and foremost, the Petrine ministry participates in the infallibility of the deposit of Revelation. This is crucial to hold in view, because Revelation is ultimately the criterion of truth.

The special, divine assistance of infallibility is a privilege attached to the Holy Father as the center of unity of the Church, yet this privilege is always given for the entire Church.

Besides the infallibility attached to the Pope’s pronouncements taught with the fullness of his supreme authority (the “extraordinary magisterium”), the “ordinary magisterium” can also be a source of infallible teaching
- when it concerns de fide doctrine (concerning faith and morals),
- when it is marked by unity and unanimity, and
- when it is proposed to be definitive and absolute teaching.


Not every teaching of the ordinary magisterium, however, fulfills these criteria. Some teachings of the ordinary magisterium can be fallible, and do not command interior assent of mind and will, if such teachings are clearly contrary to reason, or to the natural law, or to the divine positive law.

And in all of this one must keep ever in mind that the charism of infallibility is one of assistance and not of inspiration. In other words, the Holy Father cannot create doctrine, but can only explain the deposit of the faith more clearly.

This consideration of assistance versus inspiration raises another question, namely, what is to be done when a direct contradiction appears between one pontificate and another, or between pontifical documents? Cardinal Schönborn suggests that in such cases the older pronouncements must yield to the newer. The Cardinal said that we read Nicaea in light of Constantinople I, and Vatican I in light of Vatican II.

But the Church’s longstanding practice is precisely the contrary. It emphasizes that which is prior, that is, the Church’s tradition, over and against that which is posterior and, therefore, untested. Thus, the typical hermeneutic of the Church is to read Vatican II in light of Vatican I, Vatican I in light of Trent, Trent in light of what has preceded it and so on. In other words, tradition is always privileged as the remote rule of faith.

Responding faithfully to the trans-temporal magisterium of the Church (and not simply to the magisterium of one’s own times) requires holding in view two other principles of interpretation:
First, “the minor must give way to the major.”
Second, the “one must give way to the many.”

Taking the first principle: If there is question of conflict between two pontifical documents, the privilege must be given to the document that bears higher magisterial authority. For example, an apostolic exhortation of one pontificate does not possess more authority than an encyclical of a prior papacy. Thus, AL cannot supersede the encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Now, when the documents are of the same authoritative rank, the second principle comes into play: One must privilege the harmony of the many pontificates in union with each other, and their unanimity with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, over the one seemingly dissonant voice.

This concept was famously expressed over 1,500 years ago in the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins: “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.”

Although AL and St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio are both apostolic exhortations, this principle would justify privileging John Paul’s document, because it seems to be more harmonious with prior magisterial teaching, both extraordinary and ordinary.

Ultimately, however, this level of discernment cannot be a matter of private judgment, but of magisterial decision. In case of real conflict between the teaching of various popes or between the teaching of one pontificate and natural or divine positive law, only the magisterium bears the obligation and authority to clarify any errors publicly. [But what if, in this case, the supreme Magisterium, i.e., the teaching authority of the pope, is the very source of grave error???]

The interpretive key that may provide the most utility here is that Church doctrine proceeds by way of the principle of organic development.


This contrasts with the perspective adopted by Schönborn when he says:

The Holy Father has fundamentally renewed the discourse of the Church — certainly along the lines of Evangelii gaudium, but also of Gaudium et spes, which presents doctrinal principles and reflections on human beings today that are in a continuous evolution.
And again:
There is an evolution, clearly expressed by Pope Francis, in the Church’s perception of the elements that condition and that mitigate, elements that are specific to our own epoch.
And yet again:
To a greater degree than in the past, the objective situation of a person does not tell us everything about that person in relation to God and in relation to the Church. This evolution compels us urgently to rethink what we meant when we spoke of objective situations of sin. And this implicitly entails a homogeneous evolution in the understanding and in the expression of the doctrine.


This insistence on the evolution of doctrine is a problematic view, as was recognized most cogently by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman in the nineteenth century. Cardinal Newman articulated seven “notes” that constitute true development of doctrine, a development that stands in contradistinction to the evolution of doctrine. Newman’s exposition of this concept took up an entire book.

For present purposes, I offer Newman’s own summary. He says that true doctrinal development must be

...one in type, one in its system of principles, one in its unitive power towards externals, one in its logical consecutiveness, one in the witness of its early phases to its later, one in the protection which its later extend to its earlier, and one in its vigor with continuance, that is, in its tenacity.


One could sum this up by noting that a true development of doctrine — a development that requires full assent of mind and will from the faithful — gives life and vitality to the soul. By contrast, doctrinal evolution in which a new teaching sublates and eliminates the earlier teaching in a quasi-Hegelian fashion breeds dissolution, confusion, and death.

In his first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis [Benedict XVI!] wrote: “The transmission of the faith not only brings light to men and women in every place; it travels through time, passing from one generation to another. Because faith is born of an encounter which takes place in history and lights up our journey through time, it must be passed on in every age.”

The Church, and the chair of Peter in particular, has been endowed by her divine founder with the gift of infallibility so that all may know with clarity what they must do to gain eternal life. For this reason, the Church has, in every age, proposed that doctrine which is to be definitively held.

Yet, as Lumen Gentium reminds us, “this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends” and no farther.

Thus, the Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him cannot accept “a new public revelation … as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.” True development of doctrine, therefore, always operates within the analogy of faith; it operates, as Cardinal Ratzinger has noted, in a diachronic and not simply a synchronic sense.

Furthermore, the Church must continually distinguish between what is necessary for salvation — the “wheat” that truly constitutes the deposit of the faith, and the “chaff” of the age that must be cleared away. [The magisterial 'teaching' of this pontificate so far appears to be concerned only with the chaff. (NB: With the exception of Lumen fidei, which was not Bergoglio's but Benedict's.)]

Distinctions are necessary. And for this reason any sort of “creeping infallibility” that would attach the same level of authority to every papal utterance or document must be avoided.

To fail to draw appropriate distinctions — whether between binding and non-binding documents of the ordinary magisterium, or between the development and the evolution of doctrine — is to dim the light of the Petrine ministry and impoverish the faithful.

Jessica M. Murdoch is associate professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology at Villanova University.



To better provide a context for the following item, let me cite from Fr. Z's account of his homily on the Gospel for the 19th Sunday of Pentecost, Sept. 25, in Traditional Mass:

...On this 19th Sunday after Pentecost - taking my cue from the Epistle and from the Lord’s parable about the king’s wedding banquet - I spoke about the gift garment. Paul tells us to put on the “new man”. Our Lord describes how the king who gives the banquet has the man without the wedding garment bound hand and foot and then has him thrown outside to weep and grind his teeth in the darkness of night.

A bit of an over-reaction on the king’s part, no? Why the stern punishment?

As per ancient Eastern custom, kings clothed guests in beautiful gift garments as they entered in order to honor them and to make the occasion more beautiful and decorous.

The man without the garment had no excuse: he was given a garment and he refused to put on the king’s gift, thus insulting the king, the other guests, and the occasion itself. That’s what we do when we sin and are “bad Catholics”, we dishonor God and other members of the Church.

We are in the banquet on the KING’s terms, not on our terms. We are in the Church on the Church’s terms, not on our terms
...



This pope is opening the Lord's banquet
even to those who refuse to put on
the wedding garment that He provides

Translated from

Sept. 27, 2016

I receive and I publish. The author of the first letter is a woman consecrated to a heremitic life. The author of the second is a famous criminal lawyer in Naples.

Both comment on communion for remarried divorcees. The lawyer reacts particularly to the interpretation of AL recently made by the pope's Vicar for Rome, Cardinal Agostino Vallini, who delivered a 17-page interpretation for the clergy of Rome.

Both letter writers are among those 'faithful sheep' referred to by Cardinal Camillo Ruini in an interview published Sept. 22 in Corriere della Sera, when he said [B]he prays to the Lord "that the indispensable search for lost sheep will not place the consciences of the faithful sheep in difficulty".


Dear Mr.Magister,
I am consecrated to a heremitic life and I have been following attentively - and without prejudice, as far as is humanly possible - the debate on communion for remarried divorcees, to understand whether an eventual decision of the pope on this issue truly comes within his prerogatives - the power of the keys - or whether, in fact, he wants to duplicate these keys, so to speak, to use against the Master of the house, in order to be able to introduce by deceit those who do not wear the nuptial garment (Mt 22, 1-14), ]b]thus betraying the trust given to the Successor of Peter.

I wish to apply a very simple argument regarding form which is essential for the content in order to get to the heart of the problem.

If the Church gives the possibility of communion to those who, without annulling their Church marriage, had remarried in a civil ceremony or cohabitate with another woman while still being sacramentally bound to the first wife ('one flesh', says the Master of the house), then it means that the Church says it is possible to receive the sacrament of God's infinite holiness and make him dwell together in the same house - the body and soul of the recipient - as sin, because adultery remains a sin, unless doctrine is changed.

Do you think that is possible? I would say No, if we know, even remotely, what sin is. God himself reminded us of this with the immaculate conception of Mary whom he saved from original sin precisely because she would be receiving the Lord himself into her womb. Why? Because God cannot co-exist with sin.

I think that, by carping on the juridical and sentimental aspects, that is, the strictly human aspects, of the question, we are losing sight of the supernatural dimension of our life - the face of the holy and eternal God, the mysterious power of his commandments, that is, his will which we don't have to understand but to accept because it comes from him.

To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin means not just transgressing a commandment of God but - and here is the blasphemy - to 'force' the Lord to cohabit with evil. That is committing an abomination, to use a word which sounds terrible to modern ears, but this is the missing link in the infinite discussion on this topic: the holiness of God.

Why would one wish persons who are in this 'irregular' situation to fall into a greater sin? Does the Church really wish to tell her children that God and the ultimate Divider (evil) can be together?

This is the heart of the problem: that sin is being dismissed by not recognizing it as such, because it is an annoyance and constitutes a stumbling block to our plans. But this dismissal, displacing sin from where it ought to be, ends up situating it, paradoxically, in the same 'place' as God.

Do we realize what such a dismissal and displacement mean?

"The attempt is horribly devoid of sense but nonetheless fundamentally exciting to take God off a pedestal, to downgrade God, to destroy God even... Man should recognize the depth of sin... and must lay down his pride in shaping his own destiny, his obstinacy to do things as he wants and life his own life, and learn humility which always seeks grace" (Romano Guardini, Il Signore, p. 175)


Many will object - that this is Old Testament mentality, before Jesus 'brought mercy'. But they are wrong, and by far.

The "It is said..." and "But I tell you..." statements of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) introduce us to the new life in which the old laws and moralisms give way to faith and grace, but they ask and demand much more than did the laws of the Old Testament, because Jesus was not interested in making us comfortable in this life, but in our eternal salvation.] [A basic and obvious fact that one Jorge Mario Bergoglio chooses to ignore consistently.]

Redemption has the absolute necessity of making sin disappear completely, so that we may never to sin again. In the 'fullness of time', we are asked what was not asked of man in the Old Testament: the totality of obedience because now, with redemption, we are made able to put it into practice.

In saying “You have heard that it was said: Do not commit adultery... But I tell you that whoever looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery", Guardini points out that Jesus was saying the meaning of the commandment goes deeper, it goes even to the intention, because action arises from intention. (Guardini, p. 116)

In Jesus's lengthy discourse, we do not find any cheap mercy as we understand it today, but a very fine sense of sin, not a gross concept, in a crescendo of tone and tension such that at the end, the evangelist notes that "the people were astonished at his teaching" (Mt 7,28).

Jesus was not interested in a doctrine about moral customs but in a full and totally redeemed existence for man. Then let us try to understand that it is not about conceding a right to anyone (legalist thinking) but to acknowledge the holiness of God. But now we have become accustomed to touching the Untouchable [receiving the host in one's hand) and to 'force' the cohabitation of evil with the Lord.

Not to receive communion, in the cases we are speaking of, does not preclude eternal salvation, it does not forever deprive the sinner of the wedding garment he ought to wear for the Lord's banquet, but receiving it unworthily takes away everything (1Cor 11). We cannot wish to push down our brothers into a state infinitely worse than that in which they already are. This is to play the game of the Enemy.

If the Church wishes to grant this possibility it means that she already considers these sinners dead and is leaving it to God to take his own measures.

But who are we to judge these brothers in advance and seeming to dictate to God? Our ways are not his (cfr Is 55,8).

A heartfelt greeting and thanks for your work,

Giovanna Riccobaldi



Dear Magister,
Cardinal Vallini's commentary on Amoris laetitia has all the elements of a heroic clinging at straws, of twisting around a sticky pole to try and climb it.

Yet it lacks that which, rather incredibly, is lacking almost everywhere else - from the exhortation itself and all the comments about it, favorable or critical.

It is devoid of grace. The grace which made St. Paul say - and this is the Word of God - "Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat" (I am able to do everything through him who empowers me)(Phil 4,13).

The grace that prevents a Catholic from saying that it is impossible to practice sexual continence. Of course, it is difficult, very difficult - to avoid the occasion of sin by not sharing the same bed or the same room - but never impossible.

Moreover, even on the level of elementary logic, if God commanded us to do the impossible, then worse than being a tyrant, he would be a sadist. Yet it is an immutable doctrine of the Church, reaffirmed and clarified at the Council of Trent, that with the aid of God's grace, everyone can practice virtue according to his own state of life.

To me, this seems to be the real problem with Amoris laetitia: its horizontal viewpoint that takes into account only man's depraved human nature and the habits he develops because of that, completely excluding the horizon of the supernatural. Completely.

Psychologisms, sociologisms, borrowed philosophisms - there is room for all sorts of nonsense but nothing on grace. Grace which alone allows us - because whatever is possible is not impossible, and if it is not impossible, it is mandatory - to respect the Ten Commandments and the duties that pertain to our own status, including celibacy or sexual continence, whether priestly, matrimonial or extra-matrimonial.

With regard to the latter, what do we do - and I include Cardinal Vallini - with the fact that, admitting but never conceding that the nullity of a Church marriage can be deliberated on in the internal forum [between confessor and confessee], the couple still are unmarried as far as the Church is concerned, and are therefore not even able to have conjugal relations licitly, in the eyes of the Church?

Thank you for all that you are doing, and a fond greeting in Jesu et Maria.

Giovanni Formicola


TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 1 ottobre 2016 03:05
Sept. 30, 2016 headlines

PewSitter


Canon212.com


For those who follow Vatican news, the pope set out today on a 3-day visit to Georgia and Azerbaijan, former Soviet Republics.
It is his 16th foreign trip as Pope -1 in 2013, to Brazil, 5 each in 2014 and 2015, and 5 so far in 2016 - but he will be making
that trip to Lund, Sweden on Oct. 30 to concelebrate Martin Luther's schism - Luther must have turned somersaults of triumph in
his grave when this trip was first announced. JMB has now outpaced John Paul II in his travels, having gone abroad 16 times
now in the first 3 years and six months of his papacy. JPII made his 16th trip abroad four years after he became pope (it was
necessarily cut down in 1981, when he made just one trip - but to 5 countries) before the assassination attempt on him. However,
he usually travelled to many countries during each trip, and by his 16th trip abroad, he had visited 33 countries, compared to Bergoglio's 25 countries in 16 trips.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 5 ottobre 2016 01:44




ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI




Another page change, another apology for my weekend lack of activity on the Forum... Luckily, nothing very momentous has happened in the life of the Church in the past few days, unless you count the now familiar 'another inflight news conference, another Bergoglionade', of which more later ...


October 4, 2016 headlines

The two Catholic news aggregators in English seemed to be operating on frequencies remote from each other today:

C212.com


PewSitter


The headline that caught my eye immediately was that about a 500-year first because I remember vividly the very well-covered Vespers officiated by Benedict XVI and the then Archbishop of Canterbury in 2012 - and yet, this story went through without any fact-checking, and worse, PewSitter picked it up a-critically...



I don't care if you are a Ph.D. in whatever, but if you write news, you owe your readers and yourself a fact check before going out on a limb by declaring a historic first which is actually the fourth event of its kind, as we read below:



Anyway, there is a small anecdote that Repubblica Vaticanista Paolo Rodari recalled a few months back about how at this event in March 2012, Benedict XVI had stayed after Vespers to dine with the Benedictine monks of San Gregorio al Celio, at which time he spoke to the abbot - as the abbot told Rodari after Benedict's renunciation - how much he yearned for the monastic life. I shall go back and find Rodari's article and translate it for here.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 5 ottobre 2016 03:16


By far the most interesting news story in the Church these past few days, at least for me, is news of a new book-length interview by Cardinal Robert Sarah with the same French journalist, Nicholas Diat, with whom he had the interviews that came out in the 2014 book GOD OR NOTHING (in its English edition). Cardinal Sarah may have found his Messori or Seewald in Monsieur Diat, and is it not a thought-provoking trend that the most outspoken 'conservative' or 'traditional' official in the Bergoglian Curia has now had two of these book-length interviews in the space of less than three years?


Cardinal Robert Sarah on
'The Strength of Silence' and
the dictatorship of noise

In a wide-ranging interview with La Nef, Cardinal Sarah discusses his new book, saying
saying, "By living with the silent God, and in Him, we ourselves become silent."


October 03, 2016

Editor's note: The following interview with Robert Cardinal Sarah appeared in the October 2016 issue of the French newspaper La Nef; it was given on the occasion of the publication of his new book La Force du silence (The Strength of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise). The interview appears exclusively here in English by kind permission of Cardinal Sarah. The translation is by Michael J. Miller, who translated Cardinal Sarah's 2015 book God or Nothing (Ignatius Press).

This book that you are offering to your readers is a veritable spiritual meditation on silence: why have you launched into such a profound reflection, which is not usually expected of a Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who is in charge of dossiers that deal very concretely with the life of the Church?
“God’s first language is silence.” In commenting on this beautiful, rich insight of Saint John of the Cross, Thomas Keating, in his work Invitation to Love, writes: “Everything else is a poor translation. In order to understand this language, we must learn to be silent and to rest in God.”

It is time to rediscover the true order of priorities. It is time to put God back at the center of our concerns, at the center of our actions and of our life: the only place that He should occupy. Thus, our Christian journey will be able to gravitate around this Rock, take shape in the light of the faith and be nourished in prayer, which is a moment of silent, intimate encounter in which a human being stands face to face with God to adore Him and to express his filial love for Him.

Let us not fool ourselves. This is the truly urgent thing: to rediscover the sense of God. Now the Father allows Himself to be approached only in silence.

[DIM=1wpt]What the Church needs most today is not an administrative reform, another pastoral program, a structural change. [A point repeatedly made by one Cardinal Ratzinger in his own interview books and then again as Benedict XVI.]

The program already exists: it is the one we have always had, drawn from the Gospel and from living Tradition. It is centered on Christ Himself, whom we must know, love and imitate in order to live in Him and through Him, to transform our world which is being degraded because human beings live as though God did not exist.

As a priest, as a pastor, as a Prefect, as a Cardinal, my priority is to say that God alone can satisfy the human heart
.


I think that we are the victims of the superficiality, selfishness and worldly spirit that are spread by our media-driven society. We get lost in struggles for influence, in conflicts between persons, in a narcissistic, vain activism. We swell with pride and pretention, prisoners of a will to power. For the sake of titles, professional or ecclesiastical duties, we accept vile compromises. But all that passes away like smoke. [At this point, if JMB were Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, might well ask: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?"]

In my new book I wanted to invite Christians and people of good will to enter into silence; without it, we are in illusion. The only reality that deserves our attention is God Himself, and God is silent. He waits for our silence to reveal Himself.

Regaining the sense of silence is therefore a priority, an urgent necessity.

Silence is more important than any other human work. Because it expresses God. The true revolution comes from silence; it leads us toward God and toward others so that we can place ourselves humbly at their service. ["You talkin' to me???", asks the most loquacious pontiff in history.]

Why is the idea of silence so essential in your view? Is silence necessary in order to find God, and in what way “is it man’s greatest freedom” (no. 25)? As “freedom”, is silence an ascetical practice?
Silence is not an idea; it is the path that enables human beings to go to God.

God is silence, and this divine silence dwells within a human being. By living with the silent God, and in Him, we ourselves become silent. Nothing will more readily make us discover God than this silence inscribed at the heart of our being.

I am not afraid to state that to be a child of God is to be a child of silence.

Conquering silence is a battle and a form of asceticism. Yes, it takes courage to free oneself from everything that weighs down our life, because we love nothing so much as appearances, ease and the husk of things. Carried away toward the exterior by his need to say everything, the garrulous man cannot help being far from God, incapable of any profound spiritual activity. [JMB: "You talking' to me???"] In contrast, the silent man is a free man. The world’s chains have no hold on him.

No dictatorship can do anything against a silent man. You cannot steal a man’s silence from him.

I think of my predecessor in the See of Conakry in Guinea, Archbishop Raymond-Marie Tchidimbo. He remained in prison for almost nine years, persecuted by the Marxist dictatorship. It was forbidden for him to meet with or speak to anyone. The silence imposed by his jailers became the place of his encounter with God. Mysteriously, his cell became a true “novitiate” and that miserable, sordid little room enabled him to understand somewhat the great silence of Heaven.

Is it still possible to understand the importance of silence in a world where noise, in all its forms, never ceases? Is this a new situation of “modernity”, with its media, TV, and internet, or has this noise always been a characteristic of the “world”?
God is silence, and the devil is noisy. From the beginning, Satan has sought to mask his lies beneath a deceptive, resonant agitation.

The Christian owes it to himself not to be of the world. It is up to him to turn away from the noises of the world, from its rumors that run headlong in order to turn better toward what is essential: God.

Our busy, ultra-technological age has made us even sicker. Noise has become like a drug on which our contemporaries are dependent. With its festive appearance, noise is a whirlwind that avoids looking oneself in the face and confronting the interior emptiness. It is a diabolical lie. The awakening can only be brutal.

I am not afraid to call on all people of good will to enlist in a form of resistance. What will become of our world if it cannot find oases of silence?

In the turbulent floods of easy, hollow words, keeping silent assumes the appearance of weakness. In the modern world, the silent man becomes someone who does not know how to defend himself. He is a “subhuman” with respect to the self-proclaimed strong man who crushes and drowns the other in the floods of his talk.

The silent man is one man too many. This is the deep reason for modern men’s disdain and hatred of silent beings, for their abominable crimes against unborn children, the sick, or persons at the end of life. These human beings are the magnificent prophets of silence. With them, I am not afraid to declare that the priests of modernity, who declare a sort of war on silence, have lost the battle.

For we can remain silent in the midst of the biggest hodgepodge, despicable disturbances, in the midst of the din and shouting of those infernal machines that invite us to activism by snatching any transcendent dimension and any interior life away from us.

Although the interior man seeks silence in order to find God, is God Himself always silent? And how are we to understand what some call “God’s silence” with regard to unspeakably evil tragedies like the Holocaust, the gulags...? More generally, does the existence of evil call into question the “almighty power” of God?
Your question leads us into a very deep mystery. At the Grande Chartreuse [Carthusian monastery], we meditated at length on this point with the Prior General, Dom Dysmas de Lassus.

God does not will evil. Nevertheless, He remains astonishingly silent in the face of our trials. In spite of everything, suffering does not call God’s almighty power into question — far from it; rather, it reveals it to us.

I still hear the voice of the child who through his tears asked me, “Why did God not keep my father from being killed?” In His mysterious silence, God manifests Himself in the tear shed by the child and not in the order of the world that would justify that tear. God has His mysterious way of being close to us in our trials. He is intensely present in our trials and sufferings. His strength makes itself silence because it reveals his infinite tact, His loving tenderness for those who suffer.External manifestations are not necessarily the best proofs of closeness.

Silence reveals God’s compassion, the fact that He takes part in our sufferings. God does not will evil. And the more monstrous the evil, the clearer it becomes that God in us is the first victim.

Christ’s victory over death and sin is consummated in the grand silence of the cross. God manifests all His power in this silence that no barbarity will ever be able to sully.

When I traveled to countries that were going through violent, profound crises, sufferings and tragic miseries, such as Syria, Libya, Haiti, the Philippines after the devastating typhoon, I observed that silent prayer is the last treasure of those who have nothing left. Silence is the last trench where no one can enter, the one room in which to remain at peace, the place where suffering for a moment lays down its weapons. In suffering, let us hide ourselves in the fortress of prayer.

Then the power of the jailers is no longer important; criminals can destroy everything furiously, but it is impossible for them to break in and enter into the silence, the heart, the conscience of a human being who prays and nestles in God. The beating of a silent heart, hope, faith and trust in God remain unsinkable.

Outside, the world may become a field of ruins, but inside our soul, in the deepest silence, God keeps watch. War and the processions of horrors will never get the better of God present in us. When faced with evil and God’s silence, we must always persevere in prayer and cry out silently, saying with faith and love:
“I looked for you, Jesus!
I heard you weeping for joy
at the birth of a child.
I saw you seeking freedom
through the bars of a prison.
I walked close by you
while you were begging for a piece of bread.
I heard you howling with sorrow
when your children were laid low by the bombs.
I discovered you in the rooms of a hospital,
subjected to treatments without love.
Now that I have found you,
I do not want to lose you again.
I ask you, please, teach me to love you.”
With Jesus we bear our sufferings and trials better.

What role to you assign to silence in our Latin liturgy? Where do you see it, and how do you reconcile silence and participation?
Before God’s majesty, we lose our words. Who would dare to speak up before the Almighty? Saint John Paul II saw in silence the essence of any attitude of prayer, because this silence, laden with the adored presence, manifests “the humble acceptance of the creature’s limits vis-à-vis the infinite transcendence of a God who unceasingly reveals Himself as a God of love.”

To refuse this silence filled with confident awe and adoration is to refuse God the freedom to capture us by His love and His presence. Sacred silence is therefore the place where we can encounter God, because we come to Him with the proper attitude of a human being who trembles and stands at a distance while hoping confidently.

We priests must relearn the filial fear of God and the sacral character of our relations with Him. We must relearn to tremble with astonishment before the Holiness of God and the unprecedented grace of our priesthood.


Silence teaches us a major rule of the spiritual life: familiarity does not foster intimacy; on the contrary, a proper distance is a condition for communion. It is by way of adoration that humanity walks toward love. Sacred silence opens the way to mystical silence, full of loving intimacy.


Under the yoke of secular reason, we have forgotten that the sacred and worship are the only entrances to the spiritual life. Therefore I do not hesitate to declare that sacred silence is a cardinal law of all liturgical celebration.

Indeed, it allows us to enter into participation in the mystery being celebrated. Vatican Council II stresses that silence is a privileged means of promoting the participation of the people of God in the liturgy. The Council Fathers intended to show what true liturgical participation is: entrance into the divine mystery.

Under the pretext of making access to God easy, some wanted everything in the liturgy to be immediately intelligible, rational, horizontal and human. But in acting that way, we run the risk of reducing the sacred mystery to good feelings.

Under the pretext of pedagogy, some priests indulge in endless commentaries that are flat-footed and mundane. Are these pastors afraid that silence in the presence of the Most High might disconcert the faithful? Do they think that the Holy Spirit is incapable of opening hearts to the divine Mysteries by pouring out on them the light of spiritual grace?

Saint John Paul II warns us: a human being enters into participation in the divine presence “above all by letting himself be educated in an adoring silence, because at the summit of the knowledge and experience of God there is His absolute transcendence.”

Sacred silence is the good of the faithful, and the clerics must not deprive them of it!

Silence is the cloth from which our liturgies ought to be cut out. Nothing in them should interrupt the silent atmosphere that is their natural climate.

Isn’t there a kind of paradox in stating the need for silence in the liturgy while acknowledging that the Eastern liturgies have no moments of silence (no. 259), while they are particularly beautiful, sacred and prayerful?
Your comment is wise and shows that it is not enough to prescribe “moments of silence” in order for the liturgy to be permeated with sacred silence.

Silence is an attitude of the soul. It is not a pause between two rituals; it is itself fully a ritual.

Certainly, the Eastern rites do not foresee times of silence during the Divine Liturgy. Nevertheless, they are intensely acquainted with the apophatic dimension of prayer before a God who is “ineffable, incomprehensible, imperceptible”.

The Divine Liturgy is plunged, as it were, into the Mystery. It is celebrated behind the iconostasis, which for Eastern Christians is the veil that protects the mystery. Among us Latins, silence is a sonic iconostasis.

Silence is a form of mystagogy; it enables us to enter into the mystery without deflowering it. In the liturgy, the language of the mysteries is silent. Silence does not conceal; it reveals in depth.


Saint John Paul II teaches us that “mystery continually veils itself, covers itself with silence, in order to avoid constructing an idol in place of God.”

I want to declare today that the risk of Christians becoming idolaters is great. Prisoners of the noise of endless human talk, we are not far from constructing a cult according to our own dimensions, a god in our own image. As Cardinal Godfried Danneels remarked, “the chief fault of the Western liturgy, as it is celebrated in practice, is being too talkative.”

Father Faustin Nyombayré, a Rwandan priest, says that in Africa “superficiality does not spare the liturgy or supposedly religious sessions, from which people return out of breath and perspiring, rather than rested and full of what has been celebrated in order to live and to witness better.”

Celebrations sometimes become noisy and exhausting. The liturgy is sick. The most striking symbol of this sickness is the omnipresence of the microphone. It has become so indispensable that people wonder how anyone could have celebrated before it was invented!

The noise from outside and our own interior noises make us strangers to ourselves. In the midst of noise, a human being cannot help falling into banality: we are superficial in what we say, we utter empty talk, in which we talk and talk again... until we find something to say, a sort of irresponsible “muddle” made up of jokes and words that kill. We are superficial also in what we do: we live in a banal state that is supposedly logical and moral, without finding anything abnormal about it.

Often we leave our noisy, superficial liturgies without having encountered in them God and the interior peace that He wants to offer us.

After your conference in London last July, you are returning to the topic of the orientation of the liturgy and wish to see it applied in our churches. Why is this so important to you, and how would you see this change implemented?
Silence poses the problem of the essence of the liturgy. Now the liturgy is mystical. As long as we approach the liturgy with a noisy heart, it will have a superficial, human appearance. Liturgical silence is a radical and essential disposition; it is a conversion of heart.

Now, to be converted, etymologically, is to turn back, to turn toward God. There is no true silence in the liturgy if we are not — with all our heart — turned toward the Lord. We must be converted, turn back to the Lord, in order to look at Him, contemplate His face, and fall at His feet to adore Him.

We have an example: Mary Magdalene was able to recognize Jesus on Easter morning because she turned back toward Him: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (Haec cum dixisset, conversa est retrorsum et videt Jesus stantem). – Saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there” (Jn 20:13-14).

How can we enter into this interior disposition except by turning physically, all together, priest and faithful, toward the Lord who comes, toward the East symbolized by the apse where the cross is enthroned?

The outward orientation leads us to the interior orientation that it symbolizes. Since apostolic times, Christians have been familiar with this way of praying. It is not a matter of celebrating with one’s back to the people or facing them, but toward the East, ad Dominum, toward the Lord.

This way of doing things promotes silence. Indeed, there is less of a temptation for the celebrant to monopolize the conversation. Facing the Lord, he is less tempted to become a professor who gives a lecture during the whole Mass, reducing the altar to a podium centered no longer on the cross but on the microphone!

The priest must remember that he is only an instrument in Christ’s hands, that he must be quiet in order to make room for the Word, and that our human words are ridiculous compared to the one Eternal Word.

I am convinced that priests do not use the same tone of voice when they celebrate facing East. We are so much less tempted to take ourselves for actors, as Pope Francis says!

Of course, this way of doing things, while legitimate and desirable, must not be imposed as a revolution. I know that in many places, preparatory catechesis has enabled the faithful to accept and appreciate the orientation. I wish that this question would not become the occasion for an ideological clash of factions! We are talking about our relationship with God.

As I had the opportunity to say recently, during a private interview with the Holy Father, here I am just making the heartfelt suggestions of a pastor who is concerned about the good of the faithful. I do not intend to set one practice against another. If it is physically not possible to celebrate ad orientem, it is absolutely necessary to put a cross on the altar in plain view, as a point of reference for everyone. Christ on the cross is the Christian East.

You ardently defend the conciliar Constitution on the liturgy while deploring the fact that it has been implemented so badly. How do you explain in retrospect the last fifty years? Aren’t Church leaders the ones primarily responsible?
I think that we lack the spirit of faith when we read the conciliar document. Bewitched by what Benedict XVI calls the media Council, we give it an all-too-human reading, looking for ruptures and oppositions where a Catholic heart must strive to find renewal in continuity.

More than ever the conciliar teaching contained in Sacrosanctum Concilium must guide us. It is about time to let ourselves be taught by the Council instead of utilizing it to justify our concerns about creativity or to defend our ideologies by utilizing the sacred weapons of the liturgy.

Just one example: Vatican II admirably described the baptismal priesthood of the laity as the ability to offer ourselves in sacrifice to the Father with Christ so as to become, in Jesus, “holy, pure, spotless Victims”. We have here the theological foundation for genuine participation in the liturgy.

This spiritual reality ought to be experienced particularly at the Offertory, the moment when the whole Christian people offer themselves, not alongside of Christ but in Him, through His sacrifice that will be accomplished at the consecration.

Rereading the Council would enable us to avoid having our offertories disfigured by demonstrations that have more to do with folklore than with the liturgy. A sound hermeneutic of continuity could lead us to restore to a place of honor the ancient Offertory prayers, reread in light of Vatican II.

You mention “the reform of the reform” which you say you wish for (no. 257): what should this consist of chiefly? Would it involve both forms of the Roman rite or only the Ordinary Form?
The liturgy must always be reformed in order to be more faithful to its mystical essence. What is called “reform of the reform” and what we perhaps ought to call “mutual enrichment of the rites”, to adopt an expression from the magisterial teaching of Benedict XVI, is a spiritual necessity. Therefore it concerns both forms of the Roman rite.

I refuse to waste our time contrasting one liturgy with another, or the rite of Saint Pius V to that of Blessed Paul VI. It is a matter of entering into the great silence of the liturgy; it is necessary to know how to be enriched by all the liturgical forms, Latin or Eastern.

Why shouldn’t the Extraordinary Form be open to the improvements produced by the liturgical reform resulting from Vatican II? Why couldn’t the Ordinary Form rediscover the ancient prayers of the Offertory, the prayers at the foot of the altar, or a little silence during some parts of the Canon?


Without a contemplative spirit, the liturgy will remain an occasion for hateful divisions and ideological clashes, for the public humiliation of the weak by those who claim to hold some authority, whereas it ought to be the place of our unity and our communion in the Lord.

Why should we confront and detest each other? On the contrary, the liturgy should make us “all attain to unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.... Thus, by living in the truth of love, we will grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (cf. Eph 4:13-15).

In the current liturgical context of the Latin-rite world, how can we overcome the mistrust that remains between some devotees of the two liturgical forms of the same Roman rite who refuse to celebrate the other form and consider it sometimes with a certain disdain?
To damage the liturgy is to damage our relationship to God and the expression of our Christian faith. Cardinal Charles Journet declared: “Liturgy and catechesis are the two jaws of the pincers with which the devil wants to steal the faith away from the Christian people and seize the Church so as to crush, annihilate and destroy it definitively. Even today the great dragon is keeping watch on the woman, the Church, ready to devour her child.”

Yes, the devil wants us to be opposed to each other at the very heart of the sacrament of unity and fraternal communion. It is time for this mistrust, contempt and suspicion to cease. It is time to rediscover a Catholic heart. It is time to rediscover together the beauty of the liturgy, as the Holy Father Francis recommends to us, for, he says, “the beauty of the liturgy reflects the presence of the glory of our God resplendent in His people who are alive and consoled” (Homily for the Chrism Mass, March 28, 2013).

What was your exceptional stay at the Grande Chartreuse like?
I thank God for having granted me this exceptional grace. And how could I fail to mention all the gratitude in my heart and my boundless thanks to Dom Dymas de Lassus for his very warm welcome? I would also like humbly to ask forgiveness of him for all the trouble that I may have caused during my stay at his monastery.

The Grande Chartreuse is God’s house. It lifts us up to God and puts us down facing Him. The place offers everything needed to encounter God: the beauty of nature, the austerity of the premises, the silence, the solitude and the liturgy.

Even though it is my custom to pray at night, the nocturnal Divine Office of the Grande Chartreuse profoundly impressed me: the darkness was pure, the silence bore a Presence, that of God. The night hid everything from us, isolated us from one another, but it united our voices and our praise, it oriented our hearts, our gaze and our thought so as to look at nothing but God.

The night is material, delightful and cleansing. Darkness is like a fountain from which we emerge washed, appeased and more intimately united to Christ and to others. Spending a good part of the night in prayer is regenerating. It causes us to be reborn. Here, God truly becomes our Life, our Strength, our Happiness, our All.

I feel great admiration for Saint Bruno who, like Elijah, led so many souls to this Mountain of God to hear and see “the still, small voice” and to allow themselves to be called by this voice that says to us: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” (1 Kings 19:11-13).





[Which would lead me to Benedict XVI's great homilies on the monastic life when he visited the Certosa di San Stefano, the Carthusian monastery that St. Bruno, founder of the order, came to Calabria in southern Italy, to establish more than 900 years ago. They were marvelous appendices to his lecture at the College des Bernardins in Paris in September 2008. An excerpt from one of the homilies:

The specific charism of the Carthusians as a precious gift to the Church and to the world - a gift which has a profound message for our life and for all mankind.

I would summarize it this way: Retreating into silence and solitude, man exposes himself, so to speak, to reality in all his nudity - he exposes himself to an apparent void, in order to experience instead fullness, the presence of God, of Reality more real than anything else and which is beyond dimensions that can be sensed.

God is a presence that is perceptible in every creature - in the air we breathe, in the light we see and which warms us, in the grass, in stones. God, Creator omnium [creator of everything], pervades everything but is also beyond everything, and therefore, is the foundation of everything.

The monk, leaving everything behind, takes a risk, we might say: He exposes himself to solitude and silence in order to live on nothing but the essential, and it is precisely in living in the essential that he finds profound communion with his brothers, with every man.

Some may think that all it takes is to come here to make that 'leap'. But it is not so. This vocation, like every vocation, finds its response in a journey, one of lifelong seeking. Indeed, it is not enough to retreat to a place like this to learn how to be in the presence of God.

Just as in matrimony, it is not enough to celebrate the sacrament to effectively become one flesh - one must let the grace of God act and live together the day-to-day of conjugal life - likewise, becoming a monk requires time, practice, and patience "under constant divine vigilance', as St. Bruno said, "awaiting the return of the Lord so we can open the door to him immediately" (Lettera a Rodolfo, 4).

It is precisely this that constitutes the beauty of every vocation in the Church: to give time for God to work with his spirit on oneself and on one's humanity in order to take form, to grow according to the standard of maturity in Christ, in one's particular state of life.

In Christ, there is everything - fullness. We need time to make ours any dimension of his mystery. We can say that this is a journey of transformation in which the mystery of the resurrection of Christ is realized in us, the mystery of which we are reminded by the Word of God in the Biblical reading this evening, taken from the Letter to the Romans...


Much earlier, in October 2006, in the catechesis he gave on St. Bruno at his Wednesday General Audience, he said this:

The mission of St Bruno, today's saint, is, we might say, interpreted in the prayer for this day, which reminds us, despite being somewhat different in the Italian text, that his mission was silence and contemplation.

But silence and contemplation have a purpose: they serve, in the distractions of daily life, to preserve permanent union with God. This is their purpose: that union with God may always be present in our souls and may transform our entire being.

Silence and contemplation, characteristic of St Bruno, help us find this profound, continuous union with God in the distractions of every day.

Silence and contemplation: speaking is the beautiful vocation of the theologian. This is his mission: in the loquacity of our day and of other times, in the plethora of words, to make the essential words heard. Through words, it means making present the Word, the Word who comes from God, the Word who is God.

Yet, since we are part of this world with all its words, how can we make the Word present in words other than through a process of purification of our thoughts, which in addition must be above all a process of purification of our words?

How can we open the world, and first of all ourselves, to the Word without entering into the silence of God from which his Word proceeds?

For the purification of our words, hence, also for the purification of the words of the world, we need that silence which becomes contemplation, which introduces us into God's silence and brings us to the point where the Word, the redeeming Word, is born.


Serendipitously, this is the second item of the day in which I refer back to Benedict XVI's beautiful concepts about monasticism and the obvious attraction to him of the monastic life.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 6 ottobre 2016 02:19


The Bergoglian obsession that has rankled me from the very start - because it is soooo not what Christ preached at all - is his faux mercy, but apparently almost everyone in the Church, even among the hierarchy, are inexplicably and outrageously silent about it, giving him a pass and thereby helping in perpetrating it. In this sense, the so-called Jubilee Year of Mercy is a total farce.

When has a pope - or bishop, for that matter, pre-JMB - ever preached about Jesus's forgiveness while consistently omitting the 'Go and sin no more' final message of that Biblical story with the adulterous woman?

Yet JMB's constant 'editing' of the Word of God by deliberate omission and truncation has been tolerated for almost three and a half years now! This blatant toleration is a measure of the ingrained Catholic 'reverence' for the pope, in that few are willing to call him to account for his narcissistic predilections that often have him trying to be more Christ than Jesus himself was - or so he apparently thinks, otherwise he would not be so proudly insistent of his 'innovations on Christ', or even 'improvements on Christ', rather than 'imitation of Christ'. Any other Catholic prelate who preached what he is preaching - in the pre-Bergoglio era, at any rate - would have been called out right away for blaspheming Jesus in the course of asserting his narcissistic self-righteousness.


The blogger at CALL ME JORGE has found an apposite quotation from the great St. Alphonsus Maria de'Liguori to counter what JMB said at his General Audience catechesis last week [not that whatever he says is necessarily catechetical for Catholics}....


This pope's modernist idea of mercy -
and St. Alphonsus Liguori on the 'God is merciful'
delusion that leads more people to hell


Oct. 4, 2016


“The Church is not only for the good, or for those who seem good or believe themselves good. The Church is for everyone, and even preferably for the wicked, because the Church is mercy.”
-Pope Francis, General Audience
'Forgiveness on the Cross', Sept. 28, 2016


In his book Preparation for Death, St. Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, Doctor of the Church wrote:

In the church of Bergoglio, God never punishes anyone - that is why, according to JMB, there can be no Hell. Does he realize he is ignoring the entire Old Testament in which God was 'unforgiving' in his wrath against sinners - just think of the Fall, the Great Deluge, Sodom and Gomorrah, to begin with.

He sent his Son to give fallen mankind a chance to be redeemed and earn eternal life with him, but each man has to earn his individual redemption. Redemption is not an inexhaustible ATM at which a sinner can continue cashing in, as it were, on God's forgiveness, while sinning again and again. But that happens to be, in specific microcosm, the faulty reasoning for all the sacramental leniency allowed in Amoris laetitia - potentially, some will point out scrupulously, but how quickly and easily that potential is turning to fact by the mere diktat of Bergoglian bishops and priests who are interpreting all that leniency the way JMB means it!


Speaking of JMB's consuming narcissism - about which way back in 2013, I sought to cite some Wikipedia descriptions of narcissism, Hilary White cites more:

So, you've met him then...
by Hilary White

October 5, 2016

A psychiatrist has given an op-ed to LifeSite News about the “excessive anger” the man everyone calls Francis seems to display all the time towards his predecessors (and towards everyone else.)

Here, let me help with that.

There’s this thing that malignant narcissists do. It’s called “narcissistic rage,” and it comes in weird, scary bursts whenever someone calls them on their crap or looks like he’s going to see through their web of lies.

There’s a whole Wiki page on it:

Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth…

Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden, ‘true self’ has been revealed. This may be the case when the narcissist has a “fall from grace”, such as when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed, or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.

Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…

It has also been suggested that narcissists have two layers of rage. The first layer of rage can be thought of as a constant anger (towards someone else), with the second layer being a self-aimed wrath.


Narcissists use their rage to produce a constant state of dread in their victims. This is why his curial officials are said to be “terrified” of him.

Guys, he’s really not “confusing”. You just have to accompany him and see where he’s coming from.

Here's the LSN Op-Ed White referred to - you might be stunned to learn that the object of the narcissistic rage is no less than St. John Paul II, but the doctor-writer makes a persuasive case:


Exploring the excessive anger
at St. John Paul II

by Rick Fitzgibbons, MD


October 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — As a psychiatrist with an expertise in the nature, origins and treatment of excessive anger, it has become clear to me that numerous statements and programs from the Vatican demonstrate the expression of excessive anger at St. John Paul II’s remarkable legacy and prophetic writings.

The new light shed upon Our Lord’s plan for marriage and sexuality, so badly needed in our time, has been very beneficial to Catholic youth, marriages, families, educators as well as the priesthood and the episcopacy over the past 35 years. It has begun to have a noticeable and constructive effect upon marriage preparation and the priestly vocation. Attempts at undermining St. John Paul II’s legacy are, therefore, almost inexplicable.

As we follow the continuous succession of ambiguous statements from the Vatican, it’s troubling to see the obvious anger expressed toward St. John Paul II and his teaching. This anger is not expressed in a clear and direct manner, but rather in an anger of the passive-aggressive type, i.e., anger expressed in a covert or masked way. This anger has been manifested primarily by ignoring his work, much as a spouse expresses anger in marriage by the silent treatment.

The deliberate ignoring of The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World (Familiaris Consortio) in the recent Synods on the Family and in exhortation following them, Amoris Laetitia, shocked many Catholic marital and family scholars, and mental health professionals, like myself, whose professional work with youth, marriages and families has been enormously helped by St. John Paul II’s historic and groundbreaking apostolic exhortation, accurately described as the Magna Carta on the Catholic family. [Obviously, our narcissistic pope wished to overwrite and override all of FC by writing a papal version of the US Constitution, as it were, in the sense of the latter being a document analogous to the Magna Carta but widely recognized as superseding it in applicability because it is much more modern and specific about principles only expressed generically in the Magna Carta - not that FC was generic at all.]

The patent anger against the legacy of St. John Paul II, however, has become more obvious and out in the open in a number of recent actions, particularly the seriously flawed Meeting Point online sex education program for youth from the Pontifical Council of the Family that was released at World Youth Day.

This program demonstrates planned ambiguity by citing some material from Theology of the Body, while at the same time acting against Familiaris Consortio and the teaching of the Church by removing the vital role of parents in the formation of their children in this area.

The program initially posted was also a threat to the psychological and spiritual well-being of youth through its use of pornographic images that were similar to the pornography used by adult sexual predators with adolescents. The initial images that are meant to sexually arouse adolescents are still available for viewing (at LifeSiteNews here) and raise serious questions about the basic integrity of the MP program. Of great concern also is that this program was developed under the leadership of Archbishop Paglia who now has responsibility for the St. John Paul II Institutes worldwide.

Amoris Laetitia, n. 280, continues the rejection of Church teaching through the support of sex education in schools and the exclusion of the role of parents. The Meeting Point and the AL, n.280, fail to understand both the risk to youth by excluding parents and the teaching of the Church. This omission of the role of parents severely damages trust in the Church. [Which is, of course, incompatible with JMB's rote denunciation of gender ideology, when this is part of the content of sex education in schools today, starting with grade-school kids. Has anyone seen a defense of Meeting Point by anyone at the Vatican? Though they don't have to - the fact that the Vatican is purveying this irresponsible manual-workbook - and used WYD in Krakow to launch it says volumes.]

The trust in the Episcopate and priesthood has already been harmed by the crisis in the Church, described by Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the first review board, as the “massive homosexual predation of adolescent males.”

These radically new approaches to the sexual education of Catholic youth differ totally from the teaching of St. John Paul II. He wrote:

“Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them,” Familiaris Consortio, n. 37.


Also, the many messages that undermine Catholic teaching have remained without clarification, such as supporting same-sex and cohabiting unions in the interim report of the 2014 Synod, and now the degrading of Catholic morality by welcoming (in however restricted a fashion) to Communion those who are living in mortal sin in the recent document from the Argentinean Bishops Conference.

Pope Francis claimed this action is supported by chapter eight in Amoris Laetitia. This position, however, directly opposes St. John Paul II’s merciful writing on this sensitive issue in Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, and 2,000 years of Church teaching, which forbid such a practice.

St. John Paul II wrote:

The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

[I don't mind sounding like a broken record on this, but these are the definitive lines in FC which the supposedly majority 'conservative' synodal fathers agreed to keep out of their Final Relatio - effectively giving JMB carte blanche to write the hair-raising things that he and his ghosts did write in AL!]

The passive-aggressive anger against St. John Paul II’s legacy is difficult to understand and, indeed, causing extreme anxiety for millions of Catholics worldwide, the faithful in every vocation, who were feeling more hopeful about a renewal of Catholic marriage, family life, youth, Catholic education, the priesthood and the episcopate due to the greater understanding and commitment to the fullness of the Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality described in FC and VS.

In an attempt to understand what is occurring, I have been helped by reviewing Erik Erikson’s important work, Young Man Luther, in which he identifies Luther’s very difficult childhood experiences with an abusive father and a cold mother. Childhood anger with authority figures is not often expressed in youth because of the fears of the one or both parents.

However, as I’ve described in an APA anger textbook, anger in its early stages is associated with the sadness of a hurt, but later with pleasure in its expression. The anger, meant for Luther’s father, would later be misdirected at the papacy, sexual morality, the Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Marriage – and was undoubtedly a source of pleasure for Luther.

This same psychological dynamic may be occurring now behind the actions against the teachings of the towering spiritual father and saint of the family, St. John Paul II, and the Church.

In the present stormy seas, when the German Bishops Conference is rejecting the teachings of the Church on sexual morality, marriage, and the Eucharist (accompanied by papal silence and support of a Protestant-style decentralization of the papacy), the Church should not turn away from St. John Paul II but rather embrace his teaching more fully in every marriage, family, youth program, parish, school, seminary, diocese and religious community.

Truly excellent work has been done to bring to all levels of the public outstanding applications of St. John Paul’s Theology of the Body (ToB), which have already been well received by Catholic families and youth.

Catholics everywhere, as well as the non-Catholics worldwide that follow Catholic teaching with interest, deserve a defense and development of St. John Paul II’s teaching in this and other matters, and must resist current covert attempts at burying it, along with Familiaris Consortio, by those who are angry or resentful of their natural authority.

The time has come to bring to an end the recent confusion caused by deliberate and planned ambiguity.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 6 ottobre 2016 02:20


The Bergoglian obsession that has rankled me from the very start - because it is soooo not what Christ preached at all - is his faux mercy, but apparently almost everyone in the Church, even among the hierarchy, are inexplicably and outrageously silent about it, giving him a pass and thereby helping in perpetrating it. In this sense, the so-called Jubilee Year of Mercy is a total farce.

When has a pope - or bishop, for that matter, pre-JMB - ever preached about Jesus's forgiveness while consistently omitting the 'Go and sin no more' final message of that Biblical story with the adulterous woman?

Yet JMB's constant 'editing' of the Word of God by deliberate omission and truncation has been tolerated for almost three and a half years now! This blatant toleration is a measure of the ingrained Catholic 'reverence' for the pope, in that few are willing to call him to account for his narcissistic predilections that often have him trying to be more Christ than Jesus himself was - or so he apparently thinks, otherwise he would not be so proudly insistent of his 'innovations on Christ', or even 'improvements on Christ', rather than 'imitation of Christ'. Any other Catholic prelate who preached what he is preaching - in the pre-Bergoglio era, at any rate - would have been called out right away for blaspheming Jesus in the course of asserting his narcissistic self-righteousness.


The blogger at CALL ME JORGE has found an apposite quotation from the great St. Alphonsus Maria de'Liguori to counter what JMB said at his General Audience catechesis last week [not that whatever he says is necessarily catechetical for Catholics}....


This pope's modernist idea of mercy -
and St. Alphonsus Liguori on the 'God is merciful'
delusion that leads more people to hell


Oct. 4, 2016


“The Church is not only for the good, or for those who seem good or believe themselves good. The Church is for everyone, and even preferably for the wicked, because the Church is mercy.”
-Pope Francis, General Audience
'Forgiveness on the Cross', Sept. 28, 2016


In his book Preparation for Death, St. Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, Doctor of the Church wrote:

In the church of Bergoglio, God never punishes anyone - that is why, according to JMB, there can be no Hell. Does he realize he is ignoring the entire Old Testament in which God was 'unforgiving' in his wrath against sinners - just think of the Fall, the Great Deluge, Sodom and Gomorrah, to begin with.

He sent his Son to give fallen mankind a chance to be redeemed and earn eternal life with him, but each man has to earn his individual redemption. Redemption is not an inexhaustible ATM at which a sinner can continue cashing in, as it were, on God's forgiveness, while sinning again and again. But that happens to be, in specific microcosm, the faulty reasoning for all the sacramental leniency allowed in Amoris laetitia - potentially, some will point out scrupulously, but how quickly and easily that potential is turning to fact by the mere diktat of Bergoglian bishops and priests who are interpreting all that leniency the way JMB means it!


Speaking of JMB's consuming narcissism - about which way back in 2013, I sought to cite some Wikipedia descriptions of narcissism, Hilary White cites more:

So, you've met him then...
by Hilary White

October 5, 2016

A psychiatrist has given an op-ed to LifeSite News about the “excessive anger” the man everyone calls Francis seems to display all the time towards his predecessors (and towards everyone else.)

Here, let me help with that.

There’s this thing that malignant narcissists do. It’s called “narcissistic rage,” and it comes in weird, scary bursts whenever someone calls them on their crap or looks like he’s going to see through their web of lies.

There’s a whole Wiki page on it:

Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth…

Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden, ‘true self’ has been revealed. This may be the case when the narcissist has a “fall from grace”, such as when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed, or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.

Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…

It has also been suggested that narcissists have two layers of rage. The first layer of rage can be thought of as a constant anger (towards someone else), with the second layer being a self-aimed wrath.


Narcissists use their rage to produce a constant state of dread in their victims. This is why his curial officials are said to be “terrified” of him.

Guys, he’s really not “confusing”. You just have to accompany him and see where he’s coming from.

Here's the LSN Op-Ed White referred to - you might be stunned to learn that the object of the narcissistic rage is no less than St. John Paul II, but the doctor-writer makes a persuasive case:


Exploring the excessive anger
at St. John Paul II

by Rick Fitzgibbons, MD


October 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — As a psychiatrist with an expertise in the nature, origins and treatment of excessive anger, it has become clear to me that numerous statements and programs from the Vatican demonstrate the expression of excessive anger at St. John Paul II’s remarkable legacy and prophetic writings.

The new light shed upon Our Lord’s plan for marriage and sexuality, so badly needed in our time, has been very beneficial to Catholic youth, marriages, families, educators as well as the priesthood and the episcopacy over the past 35 years. It has begun to have a noticeable and constructive effect upon marriage preparation and the priestly vocation. Attempts at undermining St. John Paul II’s legacy are, therefore, almost inexplicable.

As we follow the continuous succession of ambiguous statements from the Vatican, it’s troubling to see the obvious anger expressed toward St. John Paul II and his teaching. This anger is not expressed in a clear and direct manner, but rather in an anger of the passive-aggressive type, i.e., anger expressed in a covert or masked way. This anger has been manifested primarily by ignoring his work, much as a spouse expresses anger in marriage by the silent treatment.

The deliberate ignoring of The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World (Familiaris Consortio) in the recent Synods on the Family and in exhortation following them, Amoris Laetitia, shocked many Catholic marital and family scholars, and mental health professionals, like myself, whose professional work with youth, marriages and families has been enormously helped by St. John Paul II’s historic and groundbreaking apostolic exhortation, accurately described as the Magna Carta on the Catholic family. [Obviously, our narcissistic pope wished to overwrite and override all of FC by writing a papal version of the US Constitution, as it were, in the sense of the latter being a document analogous to the Magna Carta but widely recognized as superseding it in applicability because it is much more modern and specific about principles only expressed generically in the Magna Carta - not that FC was generic at all.]

The patent anger against the legacy of St. John Paul II, however, has become more obvious and out in the open in a number of recent actions, particularly the seriously flawed Meeting Point online sex education program for youth from the Pontifical Council of the Family that was released at World Youth Day.

This program demonstrates planned ambiguity by citing some material from Theology of the Body, while at the same time acting against Familiaris Consortio and the teaching of the Church by removing the vital role of parents in the formation of their children in this area.

The program initially posted was also a threat to the psychological and spiritual well-being of youth through its use of pornographic images that were similar to the pornography used by adult sexual predators with adolescents. The initial images that are meant to sexually arouse adolescents are still available for viewing (at LifeSiteNews here) and raise serious questions about the basic integrity of the MP program. Of great concern also is that this program was developed under the leadership of Archbishop Paglia who now has responsibility for the St. John Paul II Institutes worldwide.

Amoris Laetitia, n. 280, continues the rejection of Church teaching through the support of sex education in schools and the exclusion of the role of parents. The Meeting Point and the AL, n.280, fail to understand both the risk to youth by excluding parents and the teaching of the Church. This omission of the role of parents severely damages trust in the Church. [Which is, of course, incompatible with JMB's rote denunciation of gender ideology, when this is part of the content of sex education in schools today, starting with grade-school kids. Has anyone seen a defense of Meeting Point by anyone at the Vatican? Though they don't have to - the fact that the Vatican is purveying this irresponsible manual-workbook - and used WYD in Krakow to launch it says volumes.]

The trust in the Episcopate and priesthood has already been harmed by the crisis in the Church, described by Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the first review board, as the “massive homosexual predation of adolescent males.”

These radically new approaches to the sexual education of Catholic youth differ totally from the teaching of St. John Paul II. He wrote:

“Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them,” Familiaris Consortio, n. 37.


Also, the many messages that undermine Catholic teaching have remained without clarification, such as supporting same-sex and cohabiting unions in the interim report of the 2014 Synod, and now the degrading of Catholic morality by welcoming (in however restricted a fashion) to Communion those who are living in mortal sin in the recent document from the Argentinean Bishops Conference.

Pope Francis claimed this action is supported by chapter eight in Amoris Laetitia. This position, however, directly opposes St. John Paul II’s merciful writing on this sensitive issue in Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, and 2,000 years of Church teaching, which forbid such a practice.

St. John Paul II wrote:

The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

[I don't mind sounding like a broken record on this, but these are the definitive lines in FC which the supposedly majority 'conservative' synodal fathers agreed to keep out of their Final Relatio - effectively giving JMB carte blanche to write the hair-raising things that he and his ghosts did write in AL!]

The passive-aggressive anger against St. John Paul II’s legacy is difficult to understand and, indeed, causing extreme anxiety for millions of Catholics worldwide, the faithful in every vocation, who were feeling more hopeful about a renewal of Catholic marriage, family life, youth, Catholic education, the priesthood and the episcopate due to the greater understanding and commitment to the fullness of the Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality described in FC and VS.

In an attempt to understand what is occurring, I have been helped by reviewing Erik Erikson’s important work, Young Man Luther, in which he identifies Luther’s very difficult childhood experiences with an abusive father and a cold mother. Childhood anger with authority figures is not often expressed in youth because of the fears of the one or both parents.

However, as I’ve described in an APA anger textbook, anger in its early stages is associated with the sadness of a hurt, but later with pleasure in its expression. The anger, meant for Luther’s father, would later be misdirected at the papacy, sexual morality, the Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Marriage – and was undoubtedly a source of pleasure for Luther.

This same psychological dynamic may be occurring now behind the actions against the teachings of the towering spiritual father and saint of the family, St. John Paul II, and the Church.

In the present stormy seas, when the German Bishops Conference is rejecting the teachings of the Church on sexual morality, marriage, and the Eucharist (accompanied by papal silence and support of a Protestant-style decentralization of the papacy), the Church should not turn away from St. John Paul II but rather embrace his teaching more fully in every marriage, family, youth program, parish, school, seminary, diocese and religious community.

Truly excellent work has been done to bring to all levels of the public outstanding applications of St. John Paul’s Theology of the Body (ToB), which have already been well received by Catholic families and youth.

Catholics everywhere, as well as the non-Catholics worldwide that follow Catholic teaching with interest, deserve a defense and development of St. John Paul II’s teaching in this and other matters, and must resist current covert attempts at burying it, along with Familiaris Consortio, by those who are angry or resentful of their natural authority.

The time has come to bring to an end the recent confusion caused by deliberate and planned ambiguity.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 6 ottobre 2016 03:18


Let's get on to the recent Bergoglian brouhaha on gender ideology - which JMB has been denouncing for months as his example of 'ideological colonization'. As I pointed out above, he obviously does not see any contradiction to this putative opposition of his to gender ideology, in AL's black-and-white surrender of the responsibility for the sex education of children to the schools, completely ignoring the parents. And what is among the basic content of 'modern' sex-ed today but gender ideology?... Anyway, Phil Lawler tackles the bigger contradiction of JMB's own personal attitude in approving of persons who decide to declare their own 'gender' over the biological sex they were born with....

Another confusing papal statement,
this time on gender ideology

By Phil Lawler

Oct. 4, 2016

Another papal trip, another in-flight press conference, another statement to confuse and dismay the faithful.

Last Saturday, in Tbilisi, Georgia, the Holy Father denounced gender ideology in ringing terms. “Today there is a world war to destroy marriage,” he said, and gender theory is an important part of it. He urged the people of Georgia to resist such “ideological colonizations which destroy — not with weapons but with ideas.” Strong words, these; the Pope took an uncompromising stand on a controversial question.

Then the next day he backed away from that stand. In fact, in his off-the-cuff exchange with reporters on the flight back to Rome, he showed himself willing to give gender theorists what they want most: the freedom to change pronouns.

In answer to an American journalist’s question about his condemnation of gender theory, the Pope delivered a convoluted yet revealing reply. (The quotation that follows comes from a verbatim transcript of the interview, translated by the Catholic News Agency.)

Last year I received a letter from a Spaniard who told me his story as a child... he was a girl, a girl who suffered so much because he felt he felt like a boy, but was physically a girl. He told his mother and the mom…(the girl) was around 22 years old said that she would like to do the surgical intervention and all of those things. And the mother said not to do it while she was still alive. She was elderly and she died soon after. She had the surgery and an employee of a ministry in the city of Spain went to the bishop, who accompanied (this person) a lot. Good bishop. I spent time accompanying this man. Then (the man) got married, he changed his civil identity, got married, and wrote me a letter saying that for him it would be a consolation to come with his wife, he who was she, but him!


Pay careful attention to that last line: the Pope’s reference to “he who was she, but him!” Those words are not included in the Vatican press office summary of the interview, but the telling phrase was reported by other news agencies, with only small variations in the translations. The Pope said that a “she” became a “he.” According to the official Vatican summary he introduced the individual, born female, as “a Spanish man.” He accepted the change of sexual identity as a fact.

The Pope went on to say that he had met with the Spanish couple, “and they were very happy.” Nowhere did he suggest that the “he who was she” was a troubled individual, or that he had done anything wrong. Indeed the Pope’s full statement, in response to the reporter’s question, suggested only that it was wrong to teach gender ideology in schools, “to change the mentality” of students.

In this case, the Spanish girl apparently made her own decision to manipulate her sexual identity, and the Pontiff registered no objection. He applauded the Spanish prelate who “accompanied him greatly.” Did that bishop urge the girl not to disfigure herself, not to rebel against God’s plan for her life? If he did, Pope Francis did not mention it.


A young girl who is unhappy as a girl surely does need sympathy, support, and loving care. But if she thinks of herself as a boy, she should not be encouraged in that delusion. A girl is a girl, and a boy is a boy, and neither medical procedures nor hormone injections can change that reality.

When God established the human race, the Book of Genesis tells us, “male and female He created them.” The distinction between male and female identity is the great divide, which is an integral part of God’s plan — not just for humanity as a whole but for each and every one of us.

So what happened in the case of that unfortunate Spanish girl? Did God make a mistake? The suggestion is ludicrous if not blasphemous. Then did she rebel against God’s plan? If so, she certainly needs pastoral help, but definitely not encouragement. And the same is true for other confused young people who might hear about this case, and conclude (mistakenly, I’m sure, but understandably) [Why mistakenly? If he supported this couple, why not other transgendered persons?] that the Pope would support their decision to change their sexual identities.

Even for those who do not believe in a benign Creator, the sudden rise to power of gender theory should be cause for alarm, because when we are asked to treat a biological female as a man, or a biological male as a woman, we are being asked to deny reality: to say something that we know is not true.

Gender theory is indeed an assault on marriage and the family. It is also an assault on objective truth. In that momentous battle, the defenders of truth and of family life have just been hit by friendly fire
[from no less than a pope who seems to be the embodiment of the 1968 Cultural Revolution ethos "Do as you please - it's your life!"]

Well, guess what! Lawler had a follow-up article today in response to some reader reactions:

The Pope’s confusing statement
on gender theory: a follow-up

By Phil Lawler

Oct. 5, 2016

Several readers have written to me overnight, saying that I was mistaken in saying that Pope Francis had sent mixed messages about gender theory. Let me respond to that concern.

When he spoke in Tbilisi, Georgia, the Pope was admirably clear in his denunciation of gender theory. (I said that much in my piece yesterday.) When he was pressed on the issue during his in-flight press conference, with a question from a National Catholic Reporter correspondent, he was not clear at all.

Let’s review what the Pope said in that exchange with reporters that, in the view of some readers, showed his opposition to gender ideology*:
- He mentioned a French man who objected when his 10-year-old son was taught gender theory in school. Then he said: “It is one thing that a person has this tendency, this option; and even those who change sex. It is another thing to teach along this line in schools, to change the mentality.” Thus he implied — perhaps unintentionally — that his objection was to teaching gender ideology, not necessarily to sex-change procedures.

“Sin is sin,” the Pope said. “Tendencies or hormonal imbalances cause many problems…” Later he added: “It is a moral question. It is a problem.” Yes, but what is the nature of that problem: a hormonal imbalance, an emotional illness, or a mistaken gender assignment? What is the solution: conversion, counseling, or surgery?

“I wish to be clear,” the Pope said. In the more complete transcript furnished by CNA, he elaborated: “Please don’t say, ‘The Pope sanctifies transgenders.’” (Curiously that line was omitted from the official Vatican summary.) Unfortunately, wishing to be clear does not guarantee clarity. Surely the Holy Father did not set up transgender people as models. And we can all agree that the Pope does not endorse sex-change operations. [No, we most certainly can't. He didn't say he disapproved that the Spanish girl decided to 'become' male and then marry someone whom one assumes is really female and not transgendered - which gets us into really weird stuff (Is this really a lesbian relationship since both partners are female?)]

But if a confused young person read through the Pope’s answer, looking for some reason not to change his sexual identity, he would not find it.

Yet this lack of clarity is not, in my view, the major problem with the Pope’s answer. My greater concern was his willingness to accept his Spanish visitor’s self-identification as a male.

Right now, in the field of gender theory — which the Pope, in Tbilisi, rightly identified as a war on marriage [a war on common sense, to begin with] — the main battleground is over the use of pronouns. The gender theorists insist that if a man identifies as a woman, or a woman as a man, we must use the pronouns those individuals prefer, rather than the pronouns that match objective reality. On that critical issue, the Pope yielded.

There are some unfortunate people who suffer from anorexia, and persist in thinking that they must lose weight even when they are dangerously undernourished. These people need our help, our support, our love. But they do not need us to reaffirm them in the mistaken perception that they are fat. They might harm themselves by continuing to diet; if we really love them we should try to correct their self-image, to usher them back to reality. So too with people who suffer from other warped perceptions of reality, including men who think they are women and women who think they are men.

During his press conference Pope Francis said that the problem of sexual identity “must be resolved as is possible, always with God’s mercy, with the truth, as we have said in the case of marriage.” Telling the truth about sexual identity is the only effective way to counter the propaganda of the gender theorists.[But if the pope himself wishes to encourage this self-delusion on the part of aspiring transgender subjects, he obviously finds the 'truth' inconvenient, as he does for remarried divorcees whom he does not consider adulterers, never mind what Jesus said! Bergoglio knows better than Jesus, which he has been trying to tell everyone in countless ways since he became pope.

And since he knows better, hey, he tells us implicitly, "Here's a better church than the one true Church of Christ, a church in my image and likeness. Jesus? Convenient to cite him from time to time - after all, he lived 2000 years ahead of me and has the advantage of duration over me - but who's to stop me from citing only what I choose to cite from him?" This, folks, is the ultimate narcissist megalomaniac.
]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 6 ottobre 2016 03:27


The AL ideological tsunami continues to build up... Don't miss Father Z's rant on the 17-page pastoral guidelines from Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the pope's vicar for Rome, who performs all sorts of semantic double plays to justify that yes, remarried divorcees can (not may, but can) receive communion under the permissive terms of AL.

wdtprs.com/blog/2016/10/diocese-of-romes-guidelines-for-amoris-laetitia-wherein-fr-z-rants-offers-s...

Personally, I find Fr. Z's proposed 'compromise' solution seriously hypocritical.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 6 ottobre 2016 21:16


So, yet another dreadful fallout from the last papal trip abroad:

I think we can safely state a Bergoglian rule of thumb by now: any action that is contrary to what he, JMB, thinks right, becomes, in his eyes, 'a sin'! Even as he maintains in a papal document, AL, that in some cases, what Jesus and the Church have always considered sin, e.g., adultery, may not be sin at all and that the persons committing it may even be in a state of grace!

So don't be surprised whenever he proclaims a new 'sin' - Jesus was so wrong about adultery, so he implies, but ah!, Jorge Bergoglio is never wrong when he defines new sins, which they may be in the church of Bergoglio, but are simply nonsense in the one true Church of Christ that Bergoglio was elected to lead, but which he has been seeking to replace with his new improved model of a church!...


Francis proclaims new sin:
'Proselytizing' - evangelization itself -
is a 'great sin against ecumenism'

by Christopher A. Ferrara

October 5, 2016

During his trip to Georgia, Pope Francis was asked by a seminarian “how Georgian Catholics can promote better relations with the Orthodox.” His answer illustrates why the novelty of “ecumenism” has almost totally debilitated the Church Militant:


Let’s leave it to the theologians to study the things that are abstract. [Not the first time he has said this. But when he reaffirmed it not too long ago, he also recalled an anecdote about some cardinal saying in the past that all theologians should be banished to a desert island. Of course, for JMB, there are quite a few theologians he would keep tethered to him - like his oneman theological braintrust Victor Fernandez, or his new theological pet Cardinal Schoenborn, or the pet the latter has replaced for now, Cardinal Kasper, and assorted myrmidons like Cardinal Turkson, Mons. Paglia, Mons. Forte and even Mons. Cupich of Chicago, all of whom have no problem originating or parroting with enthusiasm the motley elements of Bergoglio's 'theology of the people'.]

What must I do with a friend who is Orthodox?... Be open, be a friend. There's a great sin against ecumenism: proselytism. You must never proselytize the Orthodox. They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ, but complex historic situations have made us like this…Friendship. Walk together, pray for each other, and do works of charity together when you can. This is ecumenism.

So, ecumenism means “being a friend” and doing good works together with non-Catholics, including the schismatic Orthodox. Everything else is just “abstract” doctrine that theologians can quibble over while “ecumenism” continues its relentless march to nowhere. [An even more fundamental objection to Bergoglio's facile formulations is his studied use of the word proselytism and its verb proselytize, which he chooses to use pejoratively as seculars always do.

But proselytizing simply means seeking to "convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another" - and that is what mission and evangelization are all about. It is no wonder mission has lost its meaning in this pontificate - that mission contained in Jesus's final words to his disciples: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
(Mt 28,19-20) But, as always, Bergoglio is wiser than Christ, or didn't you already know that?]


But the primacy of the Pope as head of the universal Church, which the Orthodox reject, is not an abstraction. It is the will of the very God who founded the Church on the Rock of Peter.

The Catholic dogma on the absolute indissolubility of marriage, to which the Orthodox have devised convenient Pharisaical exceptions, allowing second and even third “marriages,” is not an abstraction. It is the will of Christ concerning an ontological reality arising from a sacramental union.

[Frankly, I was not aware that the following three dogmas of the faith are not shared by the Orthodox, and I find it shocking! Not even Original Sin? Clearly, I need to do some reading, even if I trust Christopher Ferrara does not make these statements lightly:]

The Catholic doctrine on Purgatory, which the Orthodox reject, is not an abstraction. It is a revealed truth about a stage of existence after death, which the Catholic Church has taught infallibly down through the centuries.

The Catholic dogma on Original Sin as involving the inherited fault of Adam, which the Orthodox reject, holding that only the penalty of death is inherited, is not an abstraction. It is a truth about man’s fallen condition and his need for Redemption.

The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which the Orthodox reject because they also reject the Catholic teaching on Original Sin, is not an abstraction. It is a revealed truth about the unique status of the Blessed Virgin Mary among all of humanity.

Finally, the evil of schism and the necessity, for salvation, of “the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it” is no abstraction. It is a truth of the Faith on which the eternal destiny of souls depends.

Our Lord Himself declared: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” It is the truth that saves us. Not ecumenism, friendship or even good works. For it is by hearing the truth and assenting to it that one receives the grace of justification.

Thus did Pope Saint Pius X require Catholic seminarians, clergy and theologians to make the Oath Against Modernism, which declares:

I hold most certainly and profess sincerely that faith is not a blind religious feeling bursting forth from the recesses of the subconscious, unformed morally under the pressure of the heart and the impulse of the will, but the true assent of the intellect to the truth received extrinsically ex auditu[from hearing], whereby we believe that what has been said, attested, and revealed by the personal God, our Creator and Lord, to be true on account of the authority of God the highest truth.

But the Oath Against Modernism was abandoned after Vatican II, along with the Church’s opposition to Modernism itself.
Today, in the name of ecumenism — a newfangled term devoid of concrete meaning — the truths of our religion have been replaced by feelings while doctrine is set aside, even by the Pope, as a mere abstraction for theologians to debate at their leisure.

Francis declared in Georgia: “There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytize the Orthodox!”

A sin against “ecumenism”? How can an utter novelty unknown in the life of the Church before 1962, emerging from a Protestant movement condemned by Pius XI in 1928, now be treated as if it were an article of divine and Catholic faith? Such is the crisis the Church now endures, the likes of which she has never witnessed before.

The ff comes from a site I had not visited before - it obviously is an ultra-traditional site because it makes a reference to 'the last true pope was in 1958). So bear with the 'anti-pope' business. But he/she did due diligence in researching ecumenism and how it has evolved - or, more properly, devolved - into the simplistic kumbaya-dialog-work-together idea to which this pope has reduced it.


Francis: Converting the Orthodox
a 'great sin against ecumenism'

Remember when ecumenism was a sin?


October 1, 2016

As you may have heard, Antipope Francis is currently doing mischief in Georgia — no, not the U.S. state of Georgia but the country of Georgia in Eastern Europe, which has a Novus Ordo population of approximately 2%. He traveled there on Friday and will stay until Sunday morning, when he flies to neighboring Azerbaijan before returning to Rome on Sunday night.

This being his 16th (!) “Apostolic Journey” in 3.5 years, the otherwise carbon-emission-conscious pretend-pope has been burning a lot of jet fuel for… well, for what exactly? For giving speeches, shaking hands, and kissing people. Basically, it’s all just stuff that makes for great photo ops and big headlines.

It isn’t any different this time around in Georgia, which also means that everyone is waiting — some with anxious trepidation, others with blistering excitement — for the obligatory in-flight entertainment he is sure to deliver, that is, the off-the-cuff interview he will give on his flight back to Rome. But until then, we still have a few hours.

Today, October 1, Francis ran into a little ecumenical conundrum: Although the Vatican had announced that representatives of the heretico-schismatic Georgian Orthodox Church were going to attend the “papal Mass”, they didn’t show up, on account of “existing dogmatic differences”, according to a report by the grossly-misnamed National Catholic Reporter. But the best part came afterwards:

Later in a visit with Georgian Catholics at a Tbilisi parish on Saturday afternoon, Francis told them they must not seek to convert members of the Georgian Orthodox community.

“There is a big sin against ecumenism: proselytism,” said the pontiff. “You must never proselytize the Orthodox. They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”

“Walk together, pray for each other, and do works of charity together when you can,” the pope encouraged. “This is ecumenism. Do not condemn a brother or sister.”
(Joshua J. McElwee, “Francis tells Georgia’s Catholic minority of ‘wonders’ God works in smallness”, National Catholic Reporter, Oct. 1, 2016)


If you have been following our blog for a while, this should not come as a surprise to you, because Francis has expressed this indifferentism many times before, as we have written about.

Likewise, we should all be used by now to Francis making up all sorts of silly and outrageous things, whether it be recycling as a work of mercy, fornication as holy matrimony, mortal sin as imperfect virtue, or any other buffoonery he dreams up under the guidance of his “god of surprises”. Moreover, sins against God have long been replaced by sins against man only, and recently even by sins against the earth.

But now there’s a new one: sins against ecumenism! Gone are the days when ecumenism was the sin! More on that in a minute, but first let’s have a look at some alternate reports lest anyone accuse us of using only one source that is perhaps distorting the meaning of Francis's words. Here is an account from Vatican Radio:

The question of ecumenism and the problems it can pose, was another issue discussed by the Pope that had been mentioned earlier by one of the speakers. Pope Francis told his listeners never to argue with their Orthodox friends or neighbours and especially warned Catholics never to try “to convert them.” He described proselytism as “a big sin against ecumenism” and encouraged his audience to be on friendly terms with Orthodox believers, to perform works of charity together and never to condemn them or refuse to greet them on account of who they are.
(“Pope: there’s a global war against marriage nowadays”, Vatican Radio, Oct. 1, 2016; underlining added.)


Finally, let’s also have a look at what Crux reports on this:

A seminarian had asked Francis about ecumenism, meaning inter-Christian dialogue. The pope answered saying that the abstract study of ecumenism should be left to theologians, while Catholics should instead focus on being friends with their Orthodox neighbors.

“Be open, be a friend. ‘But I must do everything to convert them!’ There’s a great sin against ecumenism: proselytism,” he said, adding that they’re “our brothers and sisters.”

Ecumenism, he said, is being friends, walking together, doing charitable work together and praying for each other.
(Ines San Martin, “Pope calls gender theory a ‘global war’ against the family”, Crux, Oct. 1, 2016; underlining added.)


Clearly, there has been no misunderstanding.

No, what Francis said here dovetails perfectly with everything else he’s been saying and doing from the beginning. We’ve chronicled Jorge Bergoglio’s heresies, howlers, scandals, and outrages on our Francis page, which you’re welcome to check out, but be warned: You’ll be drinking from a firehose of information.

At this point, the professional Novus Ordo apologist will jump in and smugly declare that Francis didn’t denounce converting people but merely condemned “proselytism”, which in Novus Ordo ecumenical theology — but virtually nowhere else — has a very specialized meaning, namely, that of using undue pressure or deceptive means to entice another to convert. [By no means confined to the 'Novus Ordo crowd', however - it's been the standby secular pejorative term for instance for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who do house-to-house 'proselytizing'.]

This is the brilliant copout, the veritable “joker” to excuse the Modernist Sect’s assault on evangelization that Novus Ordos will try to pull at this point. It is definitely popular at Catholic Answers [A site, I find, the last time I had a chance to look at it, that has become a major apologia-pro-Bergoglio outlet.]

But it won’t fly, for several reasons:
First, because Francis himself was clearly speaking in the context of converting others per se — not converting them through trickery or force, but simply converting them.

After all, he didn’t say, “Convert them only with sound means” — he basically said not to do it at all and instead to go hold hands and help out at the soup kitchen together.

Secondly, because this overly technical meaning of “proselytism” is not how people understand the term — everyone understands “proselytism” to mean converting people by means of simply convincing them using sound arguments, and Francis and his gang know that.

Thirdly, because the Novus Ordo “popes”, who denounce proselytism at every turn, never speak out in favor of using sound and non-deceptive methods of converting people, either — nor do they ever even attempt to convert anyone. [That is clearly an outright falsehood that the writings of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI on evangelization as well as the expansion of Catholic missions under them clearly belie.]

Lastly, and most importantly, because no one is actually engaging in insincere or deceptive methods of converting people to begin with. The constant condemnation of proselytism would be justified only if we had hordes of Novus Ordos everywhere trying to browbeat people into converting. But who is actually doing that in the Novus Ordo? No one!

Some time ago we directly responded to Jimmy Akin’s attempt to use the bogus “proselytism-doesn’t-mean-converting-people” argument. We encourage you to review it:
Akin vs. Akin: Let’s get technical!

When you put all the indicators together, a very clear picture emerges: The denunciation of proselytism really is, and is meant to be, a denunciation of apologetics, mission, and evangelization. [With this I agree. It is clearly what Benedict XVI was referring to in his message to the Pontifical Lateran University to years ago when he said that "dialogue with other religions is no substitute for spreading the Gospel to non-Christian cultures", and warned against relativistic ideas of religious truth as "lethal to faith."]

It is a blasphemous exhortation to contradict and reject the Divine Commission to go and make disciples of all nations (see Mt 28:19-20) and to be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Pet 3:15).

The reason they typically use the term “proselytism” rather than “converting people” is simply to have this deceptive copout to fall back on. And look at how well it has worked for them in the past! For decades their words and actions have taught people to reject seeking non-Catholics’ conversions under the cloak of plausible deniability! This is nothing short of diabolical. People’s conversion to Catholicism is necessary for their salvation — to repudiate it or reduce it to being optional is the greatest damage one can do to other souls.

So here we have Francis confirming once more that the conversion of the non-Catholic is not the goal of ecumenism; it is its very antithesis, a “sin” against it. This vindicates what we’ve been saying from the beginning and shuts up all those Novus Ordo big shots — like Peter Kreeft, Karl Keating, and Jimmy Akin, for example — who have been telling us for decades that the goal of ecumenism is ultimately conversion. It is not.

On October 1, Francis also visited the cathedral church of the heterodox and schismatic patriarch Ilia II of the autocephalous Georgian Orthodox Church. This cathedral is alleged to be the burial site of the seamless garment worn by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Good Friday (cf. Jn 19:24). Crux provides a summary of what Francis said on the occasion (full text here):

“The holy tunic, a mystery of unity, exhort us to feel deep pain over the historical divisions which have arisen among Christians: these are the true and real lacerations that wound the Lord’s flesh,” Francis said.

Yet the “unity that comes from above” the pontiff continued, urges Christians not to give up but to offer themselves as he did, with sincere charity and mutual understanding, in a spirit of “pure Christian fraternity.”

The pontiff, leader of 1.3 billion Catholics representing more than half of the world’s Christian community, acknowledged that this fraternity requires patience and humility, rooted in the certainty “which Christian hope allows us to enjoy.”

The beauty of Christian life, according to Francis, comes from guarding faithfulness to its own roots without giving into “closed ways of thinking which darken life.” Christian identity, in other words, is open and ready, “never rigid or closed.”
(Ines San Martin, “Pope says Christian divisions ‘wound’ the Body of Christ”, Crux, Oct. 1, 2016)


It is a dogma that the Catholic Church alone constitutes the Body of Christ, which is one by divine constitution and per se incapable of being split into parts. Heretics and schismatics do not destroy the unity of the Church — they merely withdraw from it, leaving its integrity untouched.

“The Catholic Church is one, she is neither torn nor divided”, said Pope Leo XII (Apostolic Exhortation Pastoris Aeterni). Interestingly enough, the Italian (original?) version of this exhortation found on the Vatican web site has Pope Leo XII using the word lacerata — “lacerated”, “torn” — with regard to what the Catholic Church’s unity is not. This is precisely the same word Francis used, though he used it to affirm of ecclesiastical unity what Pope Leo denied: The divisions are “lacerations” that tear the Body of Christ, Francis claimed.

Since the Body of Christ is one and not divided, then, it becomes all the more important to understand where that Mystical Body is to be found in this world. The Catholic Church has always taught that she alone is the Mystical Body of Christ, and all other churches, sects, or communities, are thus cut off from the Body of Christ:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity.

For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them.

Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever."
(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes; underlining added.)

"Furthermore, the Son of God decreed that the Church should be His mystical body, with which He should be united as the Head, after the manner of the human body which He assumed, to which the natural head is physiologically united.

As He took to Himself a mortal body, which He gave to suffering and death in order to pay the price of man’s redemption, so also He has one mystical body in which and through which He renders men partakers of holiness and of eternal salvation. God “hath made Him (Christ) head over all the Church, which is His body” (Eph. i., 22-23).

Scattered and separated members cannot possibly cohere with the head so as to make one body. But St. Paul says: “All members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” (I Cor. xii., 12).

this mystical body, he declares, is “compacted and fitly jointed together. The head, Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part” (Eph. iv., 15-16).

And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 23).

And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die. “The Church,” he says, “cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asunder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot live or breathe apart” (Ibid.). What similarity is there between a dead and a living body? “For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (Eph. v., 29-30).

Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 5)


That’s how true Popes speak — but a lot of water has run down the Tiber since we’ve had a true Pope in Rome (1958).

We must not fail to notice that in his speech today Antipope Francis quoted from the very same document of St. Cyprian quoted by Pope Leo XIII above, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. But whereas Pope Leo correctly interpreted its passages on unity as referring to the Catholic Church alone, Francis distorted the meaning and claimed it referred to some sort of “unity” allegedly possessed by all the baptized, regardless of whether they adhere to the true doctrine and are united to the Roman Pontiff or not:

Saint Cyprian stated also that Christ’s tunic – “one, undivided, all in one piece, indicates the inseparable concord of our people, of us who have been clothed in Christ” (De Cath., 195). Those baptized in Christ, as Saint Paul teaches, have been clothed in Christ (cf. Gal 3:27). Thus, notwithstanding our limitations and quite apart from all successive cultural and historical distinctions, we are called to be “one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28) and to avoid putting first disharmony and divisions between the baptized, because what unites us is much more than what divides us.
(Antipope Francis, Address at Svietyskhoveli Patriarchal Cathedral in Mtskheta, Vatican Radio, Oct. 1, 2016)


So here we have a diabolical manipulation of the words of St. Cyprian. They have been hijacked to promote the cause of ecumenism rather than of conversion to the Catholic Church.

In the Modernist Church, baptism alone suffices to be a member of the “Body of Christ” and put one into at least some “imperfect communion” with it (see Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 15; Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 3). In the Catholic Church, however, this is not so, as explained by Fr. Sylvester Berry:

The spiritual character imprinted upon the soul in Baptism [alone] does not make one a member of the Church; it is rather a sign or badge showing that he has received the rites of initiation, but it does not prove that he retains membership.

This may be illustrated by the case of a person receiving a tattoo mark as a sign of initiation into a society that uses such marking. If the person afterward leave the society, he would cease to be a member, though he still bore the indelible sign of his initiation.
(Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [Baltimore, MD: Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, 1955], p. 129)


Thus, merely possessing the baptismal character does not make one a member of the Body of Christ. Profession of the true Faith and unity with the Holy See are also requirements for membership.

“But”, you may object, “Francis agrees that true unity must still be attained. He wants unity!” To which we respond: “What kind of unity does he seek, then, since he repudiates the unity that requires the Orthodox to convert to Catholicism, which is the only unity in accordance with Catholic dogma?” Any other kind of unity is a counterfeit unity.

In fact, the very idea that unity does not currently exist in the Body of Christ and is merely a goal for which we must strive, was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XI:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd” [Jn 17:21; Jn 10:16], with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment.

For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal.

They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils.

Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers.

The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said…
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 7)


So, the Catholic Church alone possesses unity, and this unity can never be found outside her. Hence, to restore unity among all those who profess to be Christians, it is necessary that all join or re-join the Catholic Church.

This is true for all non-Catholics, whether pagans, atheists, Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants — or Eastern Orthodox. Hence Pope St. Pius X wrote:

…We have no more ardent desire than that all men of good-will may unweariedly exert all their strength that the unity longed for may be more speedily obtained, so that those sheep whom division holds apart may be united in one profession of Catholic faith under one supreme pastor….

Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, in whose power are the times and the moments [Acts 1:7], will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return rejoicing to Catholic unity, and united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.
(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Ex Quo Nono)

In other words, Pope Pius X taught the exact opposite of what Francis says.

The true Catholic teaching is really not complicated — it’s just not politically correct. [Of course, the great lacuna in this presentation is any mention of DOMINUS IESUS in 2000 which re-stated all the truths about the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church of Christ to mark the start of the third millennium of Christianity. But the biased blogger, of course, chooses to ignore anything done by the popes and the Church after 1958!]

The fact that the Catholic Church alone is the one and only true Church which all must enter if they wish to attain eternal salvation, doesn’t mean, of course, that Catholics should be nasty to non-Catholics or look upon them with disdain. This has never been the position of the Church. Rather, as Pope Pius IX exhorted us:

But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and “being fruitful in every good work” [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 9)


The fact is, we must simply endeavor to do both: assist non-Catholics in their temporal needs and seek their conversion to Catholicism — not rudely or haughtily, but charitably. The one simply does not exclude the other.

Pope Pius XII carefully emphasized that in the important work of evangelization, we must never compromise on Catholic dogma for any reason:

Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, “although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.”

Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ’s faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16)


After Francis spoke at the Georgian Orthodox cathedral, Patriarch Ilia himself gave a speech as well. According to the same Crux report cited earlier, the heretical bishop addressed Francis and declared: “Our unity is in the true faith, and only the true faith is useful to humanity”.

Needless to say, Francis did not contradict him, which means he apparently agrees that a rejection of the Roman primacy, of the Immaculate Conception, of purgatory, of the Filioque clause in the Creed, and of Christ’s teaching on adultery all constitute part of the “true faith.”

But then again, to Francis, the very phrase “true faith” is unintelligible. For him, it is but silly gibberish of a bygone age and has as much validity today as talk of a “true flower pot” or a “true cheeseburger”.

Ladies and gentlemen, Francis is shifting the Great Apostasy into ever higher gear. No silly petitions, declarations, or books of accusation by “resisting” traditionalists trapped in his sect will change this. It is necessary to denounce him in public for what he is: a false pope and an anti-Catholic, leading a false and heretical pseudo-Catholic sect! [I've been arguing that worse than heresy, JMB is actually professing apostasy in the strict sense of abandoning a specific religious belief or tradition - in his case, it is apostasy from the Catholic Church in favor of the church of Bergoglio fully in his image and likeness, the pope would would improve on Christ!]

Meanwhile, let me give Benedict XVI some of the credit he is due and which the above article complete ignores, by citing what he said, as emeritus pope - in that October 2014 message to the Pontifical Lateran University:

The last words that Jesus said to his disciples were: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28, 19). At the moment of Pentecost, the Apostles spoke in all languages and thus were able to manifest, with the power of the Holy Spirit, the amplitude of their faith.

From then on, the Church has truly grown in all the continents. Your presence, dear students, reflects the universality of the Church. The prophet Zachariah had announced the messianic kingdom that would extend from sea to sea and would be a kingdom of peace (Zc 9,9ff).

Indeed, wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, and men, proceeding from the Lord, become one body, something is present of that peace which Jesus had promised to his disciples.

Dear friends, be co-operators of that peace, which, in a world torn apart and violent, it becomes even more urgent to edify and safeguard it. That is why the work of your university is so important, for you to know Jesus Christ closer in order to become his witnesses.

The Risen Lord charged his Apostles - and through them, disciples of time - to bring his Word to the very ends of the earth and to make all men his disciples. The Second Vatican Council, taking up a constant tradition, brought to light in the decree Ad gentes the profound reasons for this missionary task and has thus assigned it with renewed vigor to the Church of today.

But is mission really worthwhile? Many today ask this question, within the Church and outside: Is mission really still relevant? Would it not be more appropriate to meet each other in the dialog between religions and together serve the cause of peace in the world?

The counter-question is: Can dialog replace mission? Today, many, in effect, have the idea that religions should respect one another reciprocally and, in dialog with one another, become s common force for peace.

In this way of thinking, it is often assumed that the different religions are just variants of one and the same reality; that they assume different forms according to different cultures but that they nevertheless express the same reality.

The question of truth - that which originally motivated Christians more than all the others - is hereby placed between parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth of God, in the last analysis, is unreachable, and that at most, the ineffable can be rendered present only by a variety of symbols.

This renunciation of the truth may seem realistic and useful for peace among the religions of the world. But nonetheless, it is lethal for the faith. Indeed, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, if everything is reduced to symbols that are basically interchangeable and capable of evoking only remotely the inaccessible mystery of the divine.



TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 7 ottobre 2016 02:13
Oct. 6, 2016 headlines

PewSitter

My, my! The sworn-and-bound-handfootandsoul-to-Bergoglio bishops and cardinals are certainly spreading their wings as far they dare these days to overthrow Church teaching and discipline as their master clearly wants them to. Haga lio, guys, and make yourself a nice-and-easy niche in the church of Bergoglio!

Canon212.com

To make some sense of the typically over-wrought headline above, read the article to which it links - about yet another one of those tiresome, often senseless Casa Santa Marta homilies.
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-at-mass-be-open-to-the-spirit-who-carries-us
(Sometimes I think Santa Marta must be 'suffering' some sort of martyrdom in heaven for all the profanities and inanities that have been said and are being said daily in a house that bears her name!)
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 13 ottobre 2016 03:36


Forgive the forced inactivity of the past several days - too complicated to explain. But is is serendipitous that one of the first commentaries I came across today ties in to my last entry above and yet another of those Bergoglian claptrap homilies at Casa Santa Marta...

JMB 'abuses' St Paul and the Holy Spirit
in his exegesis of Galatians 2

[He ought to have focused on Galatians 1]

October 11, 2016

When the Pope engages in exegesis of Scripture, PopeWatch has the sick fascination of someone viewing an impending car crash. From Vatican Radio:

The Pope pointed out three “attitudes” that we can have with regard to the Spirit. The first is that which Saint Paul rebuked in the Galatians: the belief that one can be justified through the Law, and not by Jesus, “who makes sense of the Law.” And so they were “too rigid.” They are the same kind of people who attack Jesus and who the Lord called hypocrites:

“And this attachment to the Law ignores the Holy Spirit. It does not grant that the redemption of Christ goes forward with the Holy Spirit. It ignores that: there is only the Law. It is true that there are the Commandments and we have to follow the Commandments; but always through the grace of this great gift that the Father has given us, His Son, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. And so the Law is understood. But don’t reduce the Spirit and the Son to the Law. This was the problem of these people: they ignored the Holy Spirit, and they did not know to go forward. Closed, closed in precepts: we have to do this, we have to do that. At times, it can happen that we fall into this temptation.”

The Doctors of the Law, the Pope said, “bewitch with ideas”:

“Because ideologies bewitch; and so Paul begins here: ‘O stupid Galatians, who has bewitched you?’ Those who preach with ideologies: It’s absolutely just! They bewitch: It’s all clear. But look, the revelation is not clear, eh? The revelation of God is discovered more and more each day, it is always on a journey. Is it clear? Yes! It is crystal clear! It is Him, but we have to discover it along the way. And those who believe they have the whole truth in their hands are not [just] ignorant. Paul says more: [you are] ‘stupid’, because you have allowed yourselves to be bewitched.”

The second attitude is grieving the Holy Spirit. This happens “when we do not allow Him to inspire us, to lead us forward in the Christian life,” when “we don’t let Him tell us, not with the theology of the Law, but with the liberty of the Spirit, what we should do.” That, the Pope said, is how “we become lukewarm,” we fall into “Christian mediocrity,” because the Holy Spirit “cannot do great works in us.”

The third attitude, on the other hand, “is to open ourselves to the Holy Spirit, and let the Spirit carry us forward. That’s what the Apostles did, [with] the courage of the day of Pentecost. They lost their fear and opened themselves to the Holy Spirit.” In order “to understand, to welcome the words of Jesus,” the Pope said, “it is necessary to open oneself to the power of the Holy Spirit.” When a man or a woman opens themself to the Holy Spirit, it is like a sail boat that allows itself to be moved by the wind and goes forward, forward, forward, and never stops.” But this happens when we pray that we might be open to the Holy Spirit:

“We can ask ourselves today, in a moment during the day, ‘Do I ignore the Holy Spirit? And do I know that if I go to Sunday Mass, if I do this, if I do that, is it enough?’ Second, ‘Is my life a kind of half a life, lukewarm, that saddens the Holy Spirit, and doesn’t allow that power in me to carry me forward, to be open?’ Or finally, ‘Is my life a continual prayer to open myself to the Holy Spirit, so that He can carry me forward with the joy of the Gospel and make me understand the teaching of Jesus, the true doctrine, that does not bewitch, that does not make us stupid, but the true [teaching]?’ And it helps us understand where our weaknesses are, those things that sadden Him; and it carries us forward, and also carrying forward the Name of Jesus to others and teaching the path of salvation. May the Lord give us this grace: to open ourselves to the Holy Spirit, so that we will not become stupid, bewitched men and women who grieve the Holy Spirit.”



Gag! May we never make another Jesuit a Pope is my fervent prayer. Of course in Galatians Saint Paul was concerned with members of the Church seeking to impose Jewish ritual purity laws on Gentile converts, particularly circumcision. Contra the Pope, Galatians is not a general antinomian screed.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit is not taught in Galatians to be a vehicle by which every half baked piece of tripe new teaching can be smuggled into the Church under the banner of being open to the Holy Spirit.

Presumably Pope Francis is so hell bent to enact his changes in the Church that he is blind that his interpretation of Galatians leads to a Protestantism on steroids where every man, woman and child can claim that any teaching they dream up is caused by the Holy Spirit.


However, perhaps for him that is a feature not a bug? Naah, the Pope gives little evidence of thinking through the logical consequences of anything he writes or says.

Did I say poor Santa Marta in the post above? The real outrage is how JMB continually abuses the Holy Spirit [aka 'the god of surprises'] by invoking him whenever he brings up more of his fragmented thoughts - certainly far from the standard of cogency that the popes before him had in thought and word - as though invoking the Holy Spirit automatically sanctifies and rationalizes his motley, often bizarre, dicta!

I do not know exactly which passage of Galatians JMB used as his take-off for the above homily (I think it must have been from Chapter 2 and justification by works alone, but perhaps JMB should have focused on Chapter 1 of Galatians, which suddenly took on immediate topical meaning for me when I reviewed the epistle just now:

7...But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

10 Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.

11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ...



Galatians 2, of course, ends with that magnificent declaration by St. Paul that Benedict XVI loved to quote:

19 For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ;

20 yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.

21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 14 ottobre 2016 03:19
October 13, 2016 headlines

PewSitter


Canon212.com


My ultra-passionate objection to this farce has been no secret....


Bergoglian 'ecumenism' ramps up with 2 weeks to go before
this pope concelebrates the quincentenary of Luther's schism

by Steve Skojec

October 13, 2016

Today’s Holy See Press Office Bulletin tells us that Pope Francis received a thousand German Lutherans in audience at the Pope Paul VI hall at the Vatican:

The Holy Father described this as a “beautiful initiative” and thanked the bishops who supported and accompanied the pilgrims.

“Let us give thanks to God”, he said, “because today, as Lutherans and Catholics, we are journeying together on the way from conflict to communion. We have already travelled an important part of the road. Along the path we feel contrasting sentiments: pain for the division that still exists between us, but also joy at the fraternity we have already rediscovered. Your presence, so numerous and enthusiastic, is a clear sign of this fraternity, and it fills us with the hope that mutual understanding may continue to grow”.

“The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides us”, the Holy Father emphasised, noting that at the end of the month he will travel to Lund in Sweden to commemorate, along with the World Lutheran Federation, the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, and to give thanks to God for the official dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics.

“An essential part of this commemoration”, he observed, “will consist of turning our gaze towards the future, with a view to a common Christian witness to today’s world, that thirsts so greatly for God and His mercy. The witness that the world expects of us is above that of rendering visible the mercy God has towards us, through service to the poorest, to the sick, to those who have abandoned their homelands to seek a better future for themselves and for their loved ones. In placing ourselves at the service of those most in need we experience that we are already united: it is God’s mercy that unites us”.


The very idea that the Catholic Church is “commemorating” the 500th anniversary of the “Reformation” is astonishing. ['Astonishing' is a pale word to describe an unprecedented outrage to the one true Church of Christ that would have been absolutely unthinkable before March 13, 2013, and I am truly shocked that Bergoglio's decision to open the Luther quincentenary year at a joint liturgy with a Lutheran woman bishop seems to be simply taken for granted by just about everybody, even in the Catholic hierarchy. Sure, the Protestants can do all the celebration they wish - but must the leader of the Catholic Church join them to 'commemorate' (the word the Vatican uses instead of 'celebrate' which is really what JMB is doing) the second Great Schism in the Church after the Orthodox broke off in 1054?]

It is no surprise that Pope Francis chooses to focus on the shared pursuit of corporal works of Mercy since the doctrinal differences that separate us are still incredibly profound. Consider how forcefully Luther’s revolt was condemned by Pope Leo X in his June 15, 1520 bull, Exurge Domine:

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thorn-bushes.

We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law.

We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church...

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected.

We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places.

[Nothing has changed since then about the above truths, but now the elected and nominal leader of the Roman Catholic Church behaves and acts as if none of the above has ever been decreed nor that the acts and writings on which such condemnation was decreed had ever been against the Catholic Church.]

One cannot help but wonder, therefore, how what Francis states could be true: “What unites us is far greater than what divides us”.

Further, while Francis speaks — as he always does — of mercy, it is not as though Pope Leo lacked compassion; the sadness he had over Martin Luther’s rebuffs of papal clemency clearly troubled him deeply:

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors?

For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul.

If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.


The fact is, Luther did not repent. He never, as Leo ardently hoped, found it within himself to “abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us”.

In modern terms, a commemoration is not typically a somber affair, but a celebration. What is the basis of this unity we hear so much about? Have the Lutherans repented of the 500-year-old schism their namesake fomented within the Church? Have they rejected the 41 errors laid out in Exurge Domine? Have they submitted to the Roman Pontiff, which is necessary for salvation?

We have heard, in recent years, an abandonment by top Catholic prelates of the idea of an “ecumenism of return” — that is to say, an ecumenism that seeks to reconcile other Christian sects with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by bringing them home into the fullness of faith.

We have seen gestures — such as [B]Francis strongly suggesting that Lutherans can, if their conscience allows it, receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church — that defy the centuries-old proscriptions against the appearance of false unity with those who hold to Christian heresy, and the Eucharistic profanation that would result.

The message of Francis in October of 2016 flies in the face of the admonitions found in Mortalium Animos, the 1928 encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the topic of “religious unity.” Compare the statements yourself. Francis said to the Lutherans gathered in Rome today:

While theologians continue their dialogue in the doctrinal sphere, continue insistently to seek opportunities to meet each other, to get to know each other better, to pray together and to offer your help to each other and to all those who are in need. In this way, freed of every prejudice and trusting only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that announces peace and reconciliation, you will be true protagonists of a new season in this journey that, with God’s help, will lead to full communion. I assure you of my prayer, and ask you, please to, pray for me, as I am in need.


But Pope Pius made clear the error of this thinking when he wrote:

Many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.

Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act, it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself?

If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another?


The schizophrenia of the post-conciliar Church continues to intensify at a fever pitch. What once was true cannot now be condemned as false, or explained away by phrases like “historical context”. Francis has set himself against his illustrious predecessors in his commitment to religious indifferentism, and it will not stand. Either they were right then, or he is now. Their views are simply incompatible.

We are certainly not “journeying together,” for the paths to salvation between ourselves and other Christian sects seriously diverge. The only course of unity for Catholics and Lutherans is through the repudiation of Lutheran error, the conversion of those who hold to this revolutionary creed, and the restoration of oneness within the One True Faith. Anything less only endangers souls — a terrifyingly common theme in this pontificate.

Let us pray for the true unity of all Christians “in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.

One might have expected a crescendo of protesting Catholic voices in the media and the blogosphere to be reaching an alltime high at around this time, but only a few are even manifesting awareness of it...

TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 14 ottobre 2016 03:47
Some items I would have posted if I had not been hors de combat lately - I'll probably end up posting most of them anyway:

How 13 cardinals changed the course of history -
Fr. Raymond de Souza, Catholic Herald, 10/13
About the letter written to JMB at the start of the second 'family synod' - the author thinks the pope would not have had to resort to all the casuistry and word games of AL if that letter had not shown the extent and depth of opposition to his sacramental leniency.
What’s the thought behind the new cardinals
Andrea Gagliarducci, CNA, 10/13
The point is that almost all the newly named cardinals represent the peripheries [Dear Lord, I never thought I would ever find that word so distasteful!], so what else is new?
New Belgian cardinal to be top papal ally
John Allen, Crux, 10/11
On how Cardinal Danneels's protege, cardinal-nominee Mons. De Kesel of Brussels, is even more ultra-liberal than Danneels and how it suits Bergoglio just fine.
Declaration of Fidelity to the Catholic teaching on marriage reaches 5000 signatures
Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, 10/12
Once again, one must be surprised that so few are subscribing to the cause. Perhaps many feel all such protests, appeals and declarations are futile anyway against this pope.
The Asia Bibi case – Lucie-Smith, CH, 10/12
New Truth? Jesus’s mistakes? God's errors
Guy McKlung, Catholic Stand, 10/12
A deeply argued screed against the Bergoglian New Truth “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”
Hell, so much worse than you can imagine -
Ann Barnhardt, Judica me blog, 10/11
Ms B lets loose against the Bergoglian denial of Hell.

And from the envirowars:
Clinton, Gore, UN – prophets of doom
by Christopher Monckton, Breitbart News, 10/11
Scientists say pope misguided on climate change
by Jan Bentz, LifeSite News
TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 14 ottobre 2016 19:17
The danger of appointing like-minded cardinals
By Phil Lawler

Oct 13, 2016

“Once, he was sentenced to death. Now, he’ll be a Catholic cardinal.” That was the headline on a Washington Post report on the Pope’s decision to award a red hat to Father Ernest Simoni, who survived almost 30 years in forced-labor camps under Albania’s brutal Communist regime.

Am I right to detect a note of surprise in that Post headline? A suggestion that it’s anomalous for a cardinal to experience persecution? An assumption that cardinals usually live in quiet comfort in their episcopal mansions? If so, I don’t blame the headline writer; I suspect most Americans have been lulled into the same complacency. [Ignorance is the appropriate word, not complacency.]

It’s time for a reminder, then, that the red color of a cardinal’s robes is meant to symbolize his willingness to die for the faith. By that standard there can be no doubt that Father Simoni has already earned his new vestments.

What of the other 16 men chosen by Pope Francis? What do they bring to the College of Cardinals?

Cardinals have two formal duties: to advise the Pope, and upon his death or resignation, to choose his successor. To some extent those two roles are related; the prelates most likely to provide wise counsel are also likely to act wisely in choosing a new Roman Pontiff.

Other considerations come into play, however. Pope Francis has made a point of internationalizing the College, this year choosing archbishops from six missionary territories, six countries that have never before had a cardinal. The benefit of that approach is obvious. Popes have always had access to plenty of information and advice about the welfare of the Church in Italy; now Pope Francis will hear more about the Church in Mauritius, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, and the Central African Republic.

Nearly everyone applauds the broader geographical distribution of the College of Cardinals. But another pattern that has emerged from Pope Francis’ choices is more controversial. The Holy Father has discarded the assumption that some large archdioceses are “cardinalatial sees” — that the archbishops in these cities will be made cardinals, more or less automatically, as soon as their predecessors die or pass their 80th birthdays.

In the US, for example, it would have been taken for granted in the past that Archbishops Charles Chaput of Philadephia, José Gomez of Los Angeles, Allen Vigneron of Detroit, and Blase Cupich of Chicago would all be in line to receive red hats, at this or some future consistory, since in every case their predecessors had all been cardinals, going back for several decades. (Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore was a special case. Baltimore had traditionally been a cardinalatial see, but its prominence has waned as the importance of neighboring Washington has waxed, and Archbishop Lori’s immediate predecessor, Cardinal Edwin O’Brien, received his red hat only after leaving his post in Baltimore to become grandmaster of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre.) Pope Francis picked only one name from that list: Archbishop Cupich, whom he had elevated to the Chicago see just two years earlier.

[With the egregious omission of Mons. Chaput from the list, I doubt he will ever be given a red hat by this pope. Despite Chaput's studied ambiguities since March 13, 2013 to appear 'obedient and loyal' to this pope, he regained much of his 'conservative' voice with his guidelines on AL, which probably dispelled any chance he had of being named cardinal this time around. Too bad - he would have been the first native American papabile ever, in terms of sheer credentials and episcopal competence. But with the College of Cardinals having a majority of Bergoglian CINO cardinals, scratch any non-JMB mini-me from any realistic list of papabili.]

The Pope has the freedom and authority to make his own choices. Nowhere is it written the Los Angeles and Philadelphia and Detroit “deserve” a cardinal-archbishop. Nor is it necessarily true that someone who serves well as the archbishop of a major city would serve well as a papal adviser or elector. Still there is some wisdom in the tradition of the cardinalatial sees.

If it makes sense that the Pope should seek broad geographical representation in the College of Cardinals, it also makes sense that he should seek representatives of some of the world’s most important cities, and some of the Church’s largest groups of believers.

To the case of the US again, there is a strong argument to be made for appointing a prelate from Los Angeles, which is by far the largest archdiocese in the country. When that prelate is Archbishop José Gomez, and his appointment would give the US its first Latino cardinal, the argument is doubly compelling. The appointment would have given representation to both the largest city and the fastest-growing group within the American Church. Instead the Pope chose Archbishop Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis, a comparatively tiny see.

Why? Vatican-watchers have been unanimous in their analysis of the Pope’s selections. He chose Archbishops Cupich and Tobin (and De Kesel of Belgium and Osoro Sierra of Madrid) because he likes the way they think — because they think the way he does. For that matter the 3rd American on the Pope’s list, Bishop Kevin Farrell (who is Irish-born, and no longer a member of the US bishops’ conference since his appointment to a Vatican dicastery), has also been a leading booster of Pope Francis, making the remarkable statement that anyone who does not understand the Pope must not understand the New Testament.

Again, the Pope is free to choose his own counselors. But a wise leader, when he chooses advisers, does not always select those who share his views. He wants different perspectives; he wants his ideas to be challenged; he wants his ideas to be refined by energetic critiques before they are implemented. [None of which has been evident at all in this pope. So, a 'wise leader'?]

As he surrounds himself with a coterie of like-minded advisers, Pope Francis risks creating exactly the sort of insular, “self-referential” culture that he had pledged to drive out of the Vatican when he was first elected as Peter’s Successor.

[A narcissist would be the very first category of disturbed personalities who will be 1) relentlessly self-referential and 2) see the mote in everybody else's eye but not the beam in his! So Bergoglio, who is self-referential in all his criteria for what he considers virtues - in himself and therefore in others - rants and raves about the defects and sins he sees in everybody else while not realizing that he himself has those defects and sins.

Ergo, no narcissist would ever want to surround himself with anybody who does not think like him, men who are his virtual image and likeness and voice! All it takes is another consistory which will probably come in a few months time for the majority of the College of Cardinals to be Bergoglians, i.e., full-fledged members of the church of Bergoglio though they are formally and nominally Roman Catholics. Then he will have insured that the next pope chosen by such a weighted electoral body will be 'Pope Francis II' in every way conceivable.]


In this respect, Fr. Giovanni Scalese had the following reaction:

"This is what came to my mind upon reading the list of new cardinals":

222. ...Here we see a first principle for progress in building a people: time is greater than space. It involves some important qualities. First, patience. We cannot expect to produce peace by sheer will power or even personal charm. It takes time to build trust and lay the foundations for strong relationships, not to mention peace.

223. This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results. It helps us patiently to endure difficult and adverse situations, or inevitable changes in our plans. It invites us to accept the tension between fullness and limitation, and to give a priority to time.

One of the faults which we occasionally observe in sociopolitical activity is that spaces and power are preferred to time and processes. Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back.

Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity.


The citation comes from that first Bergoglian travesty of a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Evangelii gaudium, in which he virtually ignores whatever the Synodal Assembly on the New Evangelization had proposed (other than the most generic items paying lip service to 'new evangelization'), to define his own ideas of what evangelization ought to be, in the process of articulating his agenda as pope.

Marco Tosatti, as usual, is not afraid to say the 'the emperor's new clothes are really tattered!". He blogs independently now since LA STAMPA, for which he presumably still works, has apparently stopped hosting its writers' blogs...

New cardinals: Uni-directional choices -
The pope's shadow government

Translated from

October 10, 2016

If anyone still has any doubts as to the ideological - and political - imbalance in this pontificate, the most recent nominations for cardinal should certainly have dissipated all of it.

But a question which I raised recently has not been dissipated: Why are certain ostensibly 'very strong' declarations by this pope not matched by his choice of key men?

In Georgia (the Caucasian republic, not the state), he spoke of a world war against marriage waged by the proponents of gender ideology. Strong words, indeed, which he confirmed at his airborne news conference the next day, but with soothing tones about persons - meaning that he has nothing against homosexuals nor transgendered persons.

One of the places where this 'world war' is being waged mot violently is the USA, where the Obama administration (and a possible Clinton-2 administration) has explicitly declared it wishes to reduce the field of public activity possible to religions.

Well, I thought - the new cardinals would certainly include from the USA the archbishops of major cities like Los Angeles and Philadelphia, both of whom are known for the clarity of their positions. But no, the red hats are going instead to Cupich of Chicago and Tobin of Indianapolis, both rabid progressivists. Certainly not known at all for any commitment to the defense of life and the family, least of all against gender ideology.

Indeed, one of those considered by insiders to be among this pope's spin doctors, Fr.Antonio Spadaro, SJ, editor of La Civilta Cattolica, commented on Twitter: "The new [US] cardinals represent a displacement of the culture wars in the USA".

But how can this be? Did the pope not say there is a 'world war' against the family? In the face of a conflagration, why is he sending forth persons who have aquaphobia?

A similar argument could be made for the new cardinal from Brussels, De Kesel. His predecessor, Mons. Andre Leonard, was publicly attacked physically for his position against gender ideology, but he never got the red hat. Rather, he was promptly retired as Archbishop by this pope as soon as he turned 75.

But De Kesel - who till now as been best known for having shut down a religious order which was flourishing with vocations and beloved by the faithful, but was founded by Mons. Leonard - was promptly made a cardinal. [He is, in fact, better known for being the leading protege of Cardinal Danneels, the pope's pet from the days of the Sankt-Gallen pro-Bergoglio 'Mafia'.]

I don't know what explanation to give to the pope's apparent double dealing or schizophrenia. There are probably profound reasons that I, in my simplicity, cannot see.

But the new cardinals are choices made within the context of a management style that one cannot imagine could be more personal than this pope's.

There are those in the Vatican and outside the walls who speak of a shadow government as a reality, in which the hub is Bergoglio's trusted 'superman', Cardinal Beniamino Stella, former diplomat and now Bergoglio's Prefect for the Clergy. [Now, that's a surprise that unfolds new and probably disturbing possibilities!] With a secret council reportedly consisting of cardinals who were 'old friends' of this pope - Kasper, Danneels, Murphy O'Connor, and Mahony (ex-archbishop of Los Angeles, who would be a key adviser on the US Church). The last three, interestingly, had more or less major problems as archbishops regarding sexual abuse by their priests. [Not that JMB will ever make them accountable, retroactively, for all such offenses.]

Add to them new entries in the Bergoglio stable such as Cardinal Baldisseri, of the Bishops' Synod Secretariat [but surely an older 'horse' in this stable than Stella!] and the new theological pet, Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna.

All of the above - far more than any Curial officials who have been bypassed for cardinal - have the keys to the heart and ears of the reigning pope.


It would, therefore, be appropriate to follow up with John Allen's reading of the De Kesel nomination. Gives one a better idea of Cardinal Danneels's hold and influence on this pope...


New Belgian cardinal poised
to be key papal ally in Europe

by John Allen

Oct. 11, 2016

[On Sunday, Oct. 9, Pope Francis announced a consistory on Nov. 19 for the creation of 17 new cardinals, including 13 under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote for the next pope.]

Pope Francis has repeatedly insisted that prelates of the Catholic Church shouldn’t sit around in their offices and demand that the world come to them. Instead, they’re to get “out of the sacristy and into the street,” meeting people where they are and engaging them in dialogue.

If dialogue with post-modernity is what Francis is looking for, he certainly seems to have found his man in Archbishop Jozef de Kesel of Belgium, named to his present post by Francis in 2015 and now set to become one of 17 new cardinals to be created by Francis on Nov. 19.

Some of the controversy that has occasionally surrounded De Kesel, much like Francis himself, can probably be explained by uncertainty in some Catholic quarters over where dialogue ends and capitulation begins.

If nothing else, Catholics in Mechelen-Brussels certainly can be forgiven a sense of whiplash over the last decade.

For more than thirty years they were led by the renowned Cardinal Godfried Danneels, a great liberal hero of virtually every debate within Catholicism and one who had been a perennial bookmakers’ favorite to be pope himself one day.

Things, however, did not end well for Danneels, when it was revealed that he had apparently recommended temporary silence to a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a fellow Belgian bishop. Though he insisted that the advice was aimed at helping all parties through a difficult time, coming on the heels of a major wave of abuse cases across Europe, it dealt a serious blow to his public image.

Danneels was succeeded by Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, and a greater study in contrasts would be hard to imagine. Where Danneels was very much a man of Vatican II, Léonard’s points of reference clearly were Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI; where Danneels was progressive-minded and on good speaking terms with secular culture, Léonard was a strong “Catholic identity” sort of prelate.
Whereas Danneels was witty and charming, Léonard occasionally came off as rash, ill-tempered and stern [Stern, certainly, because he was very clear about Catholic principles and practice, but 'rash, ill-tempered'? This was a bishop at whom protesters launched pie in the face during a public address, but he took it all as part of the job and made no big deal of the insult] all of which made for a difficult five years. [What, exactly, Mr. Allen, was 'difficult' about Mons. Leonard's five years as Archbishop of Brussels, other than the totally predictable and expected opposition of all the liberal elements that had flourished in 30 years of Danneels?]

Cue in the 69-year-old De Kesel, who was a Danneels protégé who spent eight years as auxiliary bishop of Brussels until he was appointed to the diocese of Bruges in 2010. One of his early moves was to close a traditionalist body called the “Fraternity of the Holy Apostles” which Léonard had founded.

De Kesel has openly suggested that priestly celibacy should be optional in Catholicism, stating in September 2010 that “people for whom celibacy is humanly impossible should also have the chance of becoming priests.”

In November 2015, shortly after Francis named De Kesel to take over in Brussels, he identified himself with the push at the pontiff’s two Synods of Bishops on the family in favor of allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion.

Interestingly, De Kesel said in an interview around that time that he wouldn’t justify an opening to the divorced and civilly remarried under the rubric of “mercy”, saying he actually finds that term a bit “condescending”.

“I like to take words like ‘respect’ and ‘esteem for man’ as my starting point,” he said. “And that may be a value that we, as Christians, share with the prevailing culture.”


When asked about his attitude toward homosexuality at a news conference after his appointment, De Kesel said, “I have much respect for gays,” including “their way of living their sexuality.” [All of the preceding three statements expressing the Bergoglian mindset only in much more honest terms than JMB has so far dared to say]

While that sort of language endears De Kesel to Catholic progressives and secularists alike, it has also alarmed more tradition-minded critics. A Belgian group called Pro Familia, for instance, has publicly suggested that his appointment to Brussels was a “mistake,” and protested at his installation Mass.

On the other hand, De Kesel has also insisted on an “opt-out” provision for Catholic hospitals from Belgium’s euthanasia law, disappointing some liberals in the country who expected him to be more accommodating.

“We were happy when he arrived, he seemed like an open man and I had great hopes for him,” said Jacqueline Herremans, head of the pro-euthanasia Association for the Right to Die with Dignity. “I didn’t expect comments like this.”

There’s also been some criticism of De Kesel in terms of his track record on handling abuse cases. He took over in Bruges from Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, the prelate for whom Danneels was accused of covering up, and critics say De Kesel didn’t really root out the culture of corruption in the diocese.

He’s also been accused of appointing a known abuser to a pastoral position in the diocese. [So Cardinal O'Malley, watchdog for abusive priests and permissive bishops, are you doing anything about this??? At least before De Kesel formally gets his red hat? Or are Bergoglians exempt from your much touted 'new rules' against bishops who fail to do the right thing about their abusive priests?]

Personally, as Geert De Kerpel, the editor of the Roman Catholic weekly Tertio puts it, De Kesel has a reputation for being “courteous” and “affable,” the kind of man who puts a positive public face on the Church. [That doesn't mean a thing: So is Bergoglio courteous and more than affable - when he wants to, and never with Catholics he dislikes!]

In a sense, De Kesel is perhaps a Belgian version of the same dynamics that often surround Pope Francis himself: Acclaim in secular circles outside the Church, frequently good reviews at the Catholic grassroots [What and who represent these 'grassroots', if at all, at the media level from which Allen speaks???], but some ambivalence among insiders. [Allen conspicuously leaves out 'the horror, the horror!' that many Catholics zealous of preserving the deposite of faith have articulated openly in the past three and a half years!]

What seems beyond reasonable dispute is that for the foreseeable future, De Kesel will be a Catholic heavyweight in Europe, joining the ranks of figures such as Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna as key allies in implementing the pope’s vision on the Old Continent.

For that reason alone, De Kesel is a man worth watching, not just during the Nov. 19 consistory ceremony but in the months and years to come. [There you have it! The Sankt-Gallen Mafia may all be past 80 by now, but it lives and thrives in their heirs such as De Kezel.]

The Bear commented almost instantly upon the pope's announcement of his new choices for cardinal - and he has a great line...

Cupich, Tobin & Farrell
are new U.S. cardinals


Oct. 9, 2016

Cupich, Tobin, and Farrell are the new U.S. Francis Cardinals, signaling a switch away from culture wars [so says Bergoglio confidante Fr. Spadaro]. Actually, it signals a [yet another] switch away from Catholicism.

And the Bear shall continue to be right when he says again and again that things are far worse than you think in Jorge Bergoglio's Church. Now he is consolidating his gains.

The Church in America shall be more the Democrat PAC. It shall continue to sacrifice ecclesiastic physiology for ecclesiastic pathology. It will perpetuate the anti-Catholic leftist party who will elect the next pope in Francis's image. More Muslim refugees; more running cover for renegade nuns; and more excuses for Muslim terrorism. More support for women deacons; even women deacons delivering homilies.

Read the jubilation at America magazine. BTW the author wants us to take him seriously, when he touts a book, "The Tweetable Pope: a Spiritual Revolution in 140 Characters." That pretty much says about everything, the Bear reckons.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 14 ottobre 2016 22:32




The ff was written by a Texan who spent two stints in the seminary with the missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, until he realized that this was not
his vocation. Married now for 43 years, with seven children and eleven grandchildren, he has decided to write as way of thanking the Lord for his blessings.
A lawyer, he helps inventors develop and patent their inventions.


Bergoglio's 'New Truth' - correcting
Jesus's mistakes, God’s errors?

by Guy McClung, J.D., Ph.D.

October 12, 2016

In the article “The Ideal and the Real” discussing the Exhortation, Amoris Laeteiia (Joshua J. McElwee, Nat’l Cath. Reporter April 22- May 5, 2016), what appears to be a new teaching on eternal punishment in the Exhortation is quoted in the article and it also is printed in enlarged bold font within the text:
“No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”

Is this a New Truth? Is eternal punishment not eternal? What could and would this require? Examples of possible confusion of the faithful follow if this is indeed new teaching.

Jesus’s mistakes
In light of the New Truth, did Jesus make mistakes and will they be corrected in new renditions of Holy Scripture ? For example (proposed corrections in italics):

Matthew 18:3
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven, but you will eventually be allowed in.

Matthew 25:41-46
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the partly eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . Then they will go away to eternal punishment but not really, and the righteous to eternal life.”

John 17:12
“While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction, who however will not be lost forever, so that Scripture would be fulfilled.”


'God’s errors'
Will Holy Scripture inspired by God be corrected in light of the New Truth ? For example (proposed corrections in italics):

1 Cor 6,9-10
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God right away, but eventually ? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God right away, but they will eventually since an eternal Hell is impossible.

1 Gal 5,19-21
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will, for a time, not inherit the kingdom of God, but they will enter the kingdom eventually."

2 Thess 1:6-9
"God is just and merciful: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with somewhat everlasting destruction less than forever and shut out from the presence of the Lord for a time and from the glory of his might".


Church fathers, theologians,
Doctors Of The Church

Will all works and all writings contrary to the New Truth be ignored, censored, deleted and never cited or quoted again within the Church ? Examples follow.

St. Irenaeus
Will St. Irenaeus’s words in Against Heresies forever (really forever) ignored ?

“Those persons prove themselves senseless who exaggerate the mercy of Christ, but are silent as to the judgment, and look only at the more abundant grace of the New Testament; but, forgetful of the greater degree of perfection which it demands from us, they endeavor to show that there is another God beyond Him who created the world. (Against Heresies, 4:28)

“...the elders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, arguing from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father …” (Id.).

“... the Lord... judges for eternity those whom He doth judge, and lets go free for eternity those whom He does let go free ... For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,’ these shall be damned forever; and to whomsoever He shall say, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you for eternity,’ these do receive the kingdom forever, and make constant advance in it.

"Since there is one and the same God the Father, and His Word, who has been always present with the human race, by means indeed of various dispensations, and has wrought out many things, and saved from the beginning those who are saved, (for these are they who love God, and follow the Word of God according to the class to which they belong,) and has judged those who are judged, that is, those who forget God, and are blasphemous, and transgressors of His word.” (Id.)

“God will send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire” (Against Heresies 1:10:1).

“But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, looking upon them either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.

And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God — namely, strange doctrines — shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud (Lev 10:1-2). Such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron (Num 16:33). But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, shall receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.” (Against Heresies, 4:26).


St. Augustine of Hippo
Are the following words of St. Augustine to be ignored and censored, as well as all other similar works of his? “There is a certain punishment future, fire of hell, fire everlasting.” (On The Psalms, Psalm LVIII)

Chapters 110-113 of St. Augustine’s Enchiridion -are they to be ignored and deleted? which include, inter alia, these words:

“Chapter 110. The Benefit to the Souls of the Dead from the Sacraments and Alms of Their Living Friends
...No one, then, need hope that after he is dead that he shall obtain merit with God which he has neglected to secure here.

"Chapter 111. After the Resurrection There Shall Be Two Distinct Kingdoms, One of Eternal Happiness, the Other of Eternal Misery.
After the resurrection, however, when the final, universal judgment has been completed, there shall be two kingdoms, each with its own distinct boundaries, the one Christ’s, the other the devil’s; the one consisting of the good, the other of the bad — both, however, consisting of angels and men. The former shall have no will, the latter no power, to sin, and neither shall have any power to choose death; but the former shall live truly and happily in eternal life, the latter shall drag a miserable existence in eternal death without the power of dying; for the life and the death shall both be without end.

"Chapter 112. There is No Ground in Scripture for the Opinion of Those Who Deny the Eternity of Future Punishments.
It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture, but, at the suggestion of their own feelings, they soften down everything that seems hard, and give a milder turn to statements which they think are hard.

"Chapter 113. The Death of the Wicked Shall Be Eternal in the Same Sense as the Life of the Saints.
This perpetual death of the wicked, then, that is, their alienation from the life of God, shall abide for ever, and shall be common to them all, whatever men, prompted by their human affections, may conjecture as to a variety of punishments, or as to a mitigation or intermission of their woes; just as the eternal life of the saints shall abide for ever, and shall be common to them all, whatever grades of rank and honor there may be among those who shine with an harmonious effulgence.


St. Thomas Aquinas
Are all the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, a non-Jesuit,that are contrary to the New Truth, to be censored, ignored and never cited or referred to again?

“CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTIONS OF ST THOMAS AQUINAS
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT: WHY ADULTERY AND FORNICATION MUST BE AVOIDED

“Thus, God forbids adultery both to men and women. Now, it must be known that, although some believe that adultery is a sin, yet they do not believe that simple fornication is a mortal sin. Against them stand the words of St. Paul: “For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

And: “Do not err: neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind shall possess the kingdom of God.” But one is not excluded from the kingdom of God except by mortal sin; therefore, fornication is a mortal sin.

“But one might say that there is no reason why fornication should be a mortal sin, since the body of the wife is not given, as in adultery. I say, however, if the body of the wife is not given, nevertheless, there is given the body of Christ which was given to the husband when he was sanctified in Baptism.

If, then, one must not betray his wife, with much more reason must he not be unfaithful to Christ: “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid!” It is heretical to say that fornication is not a mortal sin.”


Catechism of the Catholic Church
What about these sections of the Catechism? Will they be amended according to JMB's idea of 'the logic of the Gospel'?


679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the somewhat but not really eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices almost forever, with no turning back eventually. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1874 To choose deliberately – that is, both knowing it and willing it – something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
[Tell that to the passionate advocates of AL chapter 8!]


Conclusion
As is crystal clear, if indeed there is a 'New Truth' [the 'truth 'according to Jorge Bergoglio, who seems determined to 'correct Christ and improve on him' - now that's HUBRIS spelt and wrought large and bold, but most Catholics, even the more outspoken commentators, seem to be simply shrugging off JMB's habitual liberties in quoting Jesus tendentiously and/or truncating what the Gospels report him to have said - editing the Word of God, in short], consider what effect it will have in terms of the rewriting and correction of Holy Scripture; the expurgation and censoring of various writings of Church Fathers, theologians, and Doctors Of The Church; editing of the Catechism, changing Church doctrine, and promulgating an entirely new theology. [Not at all - that's assuming that the entire Church will simply let herself be subsumed into the church of Bergoglio. Because everything that the Roman Catholic Church has in the deposit of faith as it stood on March 13, 2013, is still there, intact and unmodifiable.

It is the scribes of the church of Bergoglio who must redact their 'deposit of faith', whatever that may be, to correspond to the ideas of their lord and master - the Vicar of Christ who now thinks he knows better than Christ about what a church should be.
]


Finally, is this still true: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” (1 Cor 14:33)?


TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 ottobre 2016 02:46



It turns out that back in April, Vittorio Messori, who has sort of decided to abstain from commenting on the life of the Church since the
disproportionate blowback from his rather mild Christmastime criticism of Bergoglio last year, apparently did react to the announcement
of the papal trip to celebrate the Lutheran schism, in his regular Vivaio column for Il Timone, resurrected this week by an Italian news aggregator...
Messori's reaction is short, swift and very cutting, and brings up historical facts I have not seen anyone bring up at all.


The pope is going to Sweden
to celebrate Luther's schism -
but even the country he chose shows
there is nothing for a Catholic
to celebrate at all

by Vittorio Messori
Translated from


The pope has decided to go to Sweden this month to commemorate the half-millennium of Martin Luther's Reformation.

In Lund, an old university city, he will meet with the leaders of the few that remain of the city's Lutheran community and will celebrate together.

Francis has shown many times - by his own admission - that he does not know many aspects of the history of the Church. Of course, no one can know everything - not even a pope.

But Bergoglio has at his disposal the cream of Church historians who could easily remind him of what Henri Pierenne, one of the best historians in the 2th century, summarized as follows:

Lutheranism, in the countries which accepted it first, was largely imposed by the authority of local princes and nobles who coveted the material goods of the Church which they were unable to sequester for themselves. Religious conviction had a rather modest role in the expansion of the new faith. Those who were sincere, convinced and disinterested (i.e., non-partisan) were very few at the start. But imposed by authority and accepted out of obedience, Lutheranism proceeded to grow by annexation, often forcible.


And it was precisely in Sweden, where the pope is going, evidently moved by being able to solemnize 500 years of Luther's schism from the Church alongside his Protestant brothers - precisely in Sweden where violence and cynicism were most manifest at the time.

The founder of the new Scandinavian dynasty, Gustav I Vasa, far from having any religious concerns, but out of sheer economic and political interests, saw in Lutheranism a way to fill the empty coffers of the kingdom and to bind the nobility to him by subdividing among them the booty represented by the confiscated Church properties.

The people were indignant and rebelled a number of times but all such rebellions were crushed by Gustav. His successors were forced - due to the discontent of the people about the new faith imposed by force of arms - to tolerate that at least some Marian shrines remained open.

In Lund itself, which this pope is visiting, all the churches were razed to the ground, except the cathedral, although it was stripped of every adornment, in accordance with 'reformed' practice.

The stones of the demolished Catholic edifices were used to construct fortifications and the city's circumferential wall.

In short, to say it clearly: it is difficult to understand what there is for any Catholic to celebrate in Sweden. But perhaps the bishop of Rome will explain that to us when he goes to Lund.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 16 ottobre 2016 21:55


Two weeks to go before Bergoglio's pilgrimage to pay homage to Martin Luther, and still very little outrage in the Catholic media and blogosphere
about this unconscionable anomaly - made worse by this pope's recent scandalous oversight of a signal Fatima anniversary on the very day he
chooses to honor Luther at the Vatican... Antonio Socci elaborates here on the scandal he briefly noted on Oct.13, when it happened...

Not even commented upon, of course, is that while the Bergoglio Vatican has been trumpeting its concelebration of the 500th anniversary of
Luther's schism in 2017, the only mention of the first centenary of the Fatima apparitions in 2017 so far has been a routine announcement that
this pope will be in Fatima on May 13, 2017, anniversary of the first Marian apparition to cousins Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco... Go figure! -
for a pope who makes great public ado about his devotion to Mary, downgradin the Fatima centenary in favor of all the faux-ecumenical hooplah
about 'celebrating' Luther's schism is really bizarre, to say the least.


Bergoglio ignores Fatima anniversary
to celebrate Luther with German pilgrims

Bergoglio, on the 99th anniversary of Our Lady's apparitions in Fatima (actually,
the start of the centenary celebration to culminate on Oct. 13, 2017), celebrated
with 1000 Lutheran pilgrims at the Vatican - in front of a statue of Martin Luther,
the Church's greatest heretic - the coming start of the fifth centenary of Luther's
schism. He is all set to lead the worst-ever Halloween trick a pope could turn
on the Roman Catholic Church by opening that Protestant jubilee on Oct. 31 in Lund

Translated from

Oct. 16, 2016

In 2017 we mark 500 years of the Protestant schism (which marked the end of Europe's spiritual unity), as well as 100 years since Mary's apparitions in Fatima, the greatest prophetic event so far in the history of the Church.

Luther was the origin of that subjectivism from which, as Jacques Maritain tells us, were born all the philosophies and ideologies we have experienced in modern times.

Whereas the apparitions at Fatima - where Our Lady pre-announces the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Communist persecution of Christians and the Second World War - alerts mankind to the apocalyptic consequences of all ideologies that are against God (or are Godless).

Therefore, there is a clear antagonism between the two events. Let us recall the pertinent days: October 31 is Luther's day, whereas October 13 is Mary's day.

On October 31, 1517, Luther affixed his 95 theses to the main door of the Cathedral of Wittemberg. And on October 13, 1917, before 70,000 witnesses, Our Lady gave the sign she had promised to the three peasant visionaries of Fatima, the sign that the Portuguese secular press had been 'demanding'.

The newsmen present on that October day in Fatima were petrified. I remind everyone that Avelino de Almeida, editor of the daily newspaper O Secolo of Lisbon, then the most widely circulated and the most secular of Portuguese newspapers, came in person to that out-of-the-way pastureland in Fatima, all primed to report the failure of a Church imbroglio.

On the contrary, on Oct. 15, he signed an article that from its very headline, said something else: "Extraordinary things! How the sun danced at noon in Fatima".

Because of that event, the Church immediately gave her official recognition to the Marian apparitions at Fatima. Of course, eventually, Our Lady's prophecies would be realized one by one.

But at the Vatican, the anniversary of the 'miracle of the sun' appeared to have been completely forgotten by Papa Bergoglio who will be travelling to Lund, Sweden on October 31 in order to celebrate with Protestants the 500th anniversary of Luther's schism.

Four years ago, Benedict XVI had made it known he had no intention of doing any such thing because "for the Catholic Church, there is nothing to celebrate".

But Bergoglio is going. His decision has already left many Catholics perplexed [That's a copout euphemism for 'jaw-dropping outrage'] who are even more concerned about any theological 'concessions' that Bergoglio could make in Lund.

But a new hornet's nest of protests was stirred up on the Internet when Bergoglio - who made no public reference at all to the Fatima anniversary and the 'miracle of the sun' last Thursday - chose that every day to receive in the Vatican during a public audience at the Aula Paolo VI a statue of Martin Luther.

It is true that the audience was for some 1,000 Lutheran pilgrims from Germany, but the symbolic weight of that triumphal entrance of the statue, in pompa magna (with great pomp), with photos of the pope beside it widely circulated, has become a great scandal in Italy. Especially since it took place on the Fatima anniversary day which was completely ignored by the Vatican.

First of all, a statue of Luther is a basic contradiction of what he taught. Protestants have been characterized by their relentless opposition to sacred images. [So they may well consider Luther their first saint, but there are no statues of him - or, for that matter, of Jesus or any other sacred figure - to be found in Protestant churches.]

As Vittorio Messori reminds us, "Precisely in Lund, where Francis is going, all the Catholic churches were razed to the ground, except the cathedral which was however stripped of every adornment in accordance with the 'reformed' practice. The stones of the demolished Catholic edifices were used to build the fortifications and the perimeter wall of the city" [in the early 16th century, when Lutheranism was welcomed with open arms by the Swedish king as a way to confiscate Church properties and fill the empty coffers of the state].

Of course, it is natural and right that there is today a fraternal dialog between Catholics and Protestants, but the problem remains the person of Martin Luther who is celebrated in that statue as if he were a saint.

Was there a need at all of for this symbolic gesture that seemed to be a sort of 'canonization' of Luther, especially in place of any celebration of Our Lady of Fatima?

It is right that scholars pursue their study of Luther, but to exalt him as a saint as this pope seemed to do last Thursday, is a scandal to Catholics.

The Church has always defined Luther as 'heretic and schismatic', and excommunicated him on January 3, 1521. Moreover, he was the protagonist of one of the most tragic developments (perhaps the most tragic) in Christian history.

Messori reminds us of what the 20th-century historian Henri Pirenne wrote:

Lutheranism, in the countries which accepted it first, was largely imposed by the authority of local princes and nobles who coveted the material goods of the Church which they were unable to sequester for themselves. Religious conviction had a rather modest role in the expansion of the new faith. Those who were sincere, convinced and disinterested (i.e., non-partisan) were very few at the start. But imposed by authority and accepted out of obedience, Lutheranism proceeded to grow by annexation, often forcible.


Among other things, Luther's schism led to tragic wars of religion in Europe. Phillip Melancthon, Luther's closest collaborator and considered the co-founder of Lutheranism, wrote: "All the waters of the Elbe cannot provide tears enough to weep for the disasters of the Reformation: and the evil is irremediable".

And wasn't it Luther who vowed to "pull the pope's tongue out and hang him in the gallows with the rabble who idolizes him"?

And who thundered forth: "I declare that all brothels, murders, thefts, murders and adulteries are less evil than the abomination that is the Papist Mass"?

Then there's the Luther with the worst invectives he could muster against the Jews in a tract entitled "About the Jews and their lies" published in 1543.

And finally, the Luther who inveighed against reason which he considered 'blind, deaf, stupid, wicked and sacrilegious" and "the greatest prostitute in the service of the devil".

[The above, of course, barely scratches the surface of all the outrageous things Luther said and wrote after he established his own church. This is a man who said “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me" and "Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me”. [One suspects that if JMB weren't so 'humble', he might make the same statements, seeing as he has already been editing the Word of God to conform to his ideas, and in the process, denying fundamental Catholic truths that the sand Doctors and Popes of the Church have left us in the deposit of faith.] A wide thematic sampling of Luther's outrages can be read here:http://shoebat.com/2015/12/27/martin-luther-the-bare-truth-unfolded/]

It has been observed that Luther's attitude against reason leads directly to fundamentalism, and an important Protestant sociologist, Jean-Paul Willaime, wrote, "Protestantism is a fundamentalism". Massimo Introvigne has added that Protestant fundamentalism also gave rise to absolutism.

That is why St. Pius X, in Pascendi dominici gregis (1907), wrote that "The error of the Protestants was the first move to absolutism".

So one does not understand why his current successor, Bergoglio, has been able to [so blithely] overturn much of what the Church has always taught.

Sandro Magister notes: "In the most recent of his inflight news conferences, returning from Armenia, he wove a eulogy of Luther. He said he was inspired by the best intentions and that his reform was 'medicine for the Church', ignoring all the essential dogmatic differences between the Church and Protestantism".

There is no explanation. Other than what Paul VI had glimpsed in his interview with Jean Guitton: "Within the Catholic world, it sometimes seems that non-Catholic thinking prevails, and it can be that such non-Catholic thinking within Catholicism will become the strongest in the future. But it will never represent the thinking of the Church."

He could not have imagined that such non-Catholic thinking would come from the very summit of the Church. Where it has been pushed by strong internal theological and clerical currents.

But there have been external power groups who for decades have been stirring up the conversion of the Church to 'politically correct' ideologies.

And in recent days, we have found out through Wikileaks that important personalities from the US Democratic party (in line with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were discussing back in 2012 how to "plant the seeds of revolution" within the Church in order to support the usual 'progressivist' issues on ecology, sexuality and immigration.

The following year, 2013, came the enigmatic renunciation of Benedict XVI - who was opposed by all the media and the powers of 'the world' - and the arrival of Bergoglio, who has been the object of hosannahs from all the media and secular powers.

One could think that the key to these events (relating to the 'two popes') might well be in the enigmatic vision described in the Third Secret of Fatima, in which Sor Lucia describes "a bishop dressed in white', and later sees "the Holy Father, trembling" crossing a city that has been destroyed "with vacillating steps, afflicted by pain and suffering". [I will not even try to hypothesize what Socci thinks in citing this. The vision described by Sor Lucia is enigmatic and confusing enough.]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 16 ottobre 2016 22:31

Benedict XVI confers the red hat on Archbishop Robert Sarah, November 20, 2010.

A Sunday treat from Beatrice, www.benoit-et-moi-2016.fr, who credits the French site Pro Liturgia for citing this quotation from an interview given
by Cardinal Sarah this week to Jean Sevilla of Le Figaro magazine:


I have known Benedict XV, who has marked me very much with the depth of his interior life, the density of his theological and spiritual thinking, his humility, and most of all, his love for God and the Church. He is also a man who has suffered much. He lived a life of sacrifice, placing his most profound being into his magisterium. I hope that one day he will be ranked among the Fathers of the Church.



Two days ago, Fr. H wrote this tribute to Cardinal Sarah:

A courageous Cardinal

October 14, 2016

I can understand brother priests who feel that, admirable though the views of Cardinal Sarah are, now is not yet really quite the right moment to stick one's head above the bullet-scarred parapet and to begin the gradual, gentle, pastoral, catechised move to restore ad Orientem worship.

But I urge them to read the extracts available in translation on the internet from his latest book. And to consider the simple courage of this wise and godly man. And to remember that the dissuasions of some other hierarchs have been based on a mistranslation of Latin and bad advice from somebody about the Law.

After Sarah's London paper on the subject, his appeal was immediately subverted, publicly, by other cardinals and bishops. Yet he now reiterates his call and points out that no priest needs any permission from anyone to celebrate facing the same way as the people. (Compare the very similar appeal to Subsidiarity in Summorum Pontificum.)

In other words, attempts by prelates cuiuslibet dignitatis [asserting their rank]] to give the impression that they can inhibit their subjects from doing this are quite simply extra-legal pressures. If they do invoke 'law', they are ill-informed (not, I hope, mendacious).

Clergy might, I most humbly suggest, ask themselves how they will feel if ... just for the moment, of course ... they ignore Sarah's appeal ... and the forces pitted against him then succeed in getting him hung out to dry.

The possibility of this is suggested by his own hint that the Holy Father (as well as the Vatican Press Office chappies) might not like his return to the topic of reforming the reform; and his insistence that the Pope "must" prevent arrogant intellectuals from stealing the patrimony of authentic Catholic worship from God's poor.

In practical and pastoral terms, I will pass on a point someone made at the Ordinariate Plenary Meeting only yesterday: if you do the Liturgy of the Word at the Seat, and return to the Seat for the oratio post communionem, facing ad Orientem simply for the Eucharistic Prayer, Our Father, and Fraction, you will actually not have been "turning your back on the people" for very long.

Also from the Patrimony: remember that in a transitional period you could face the people at some Masses and not others; on some Sundays of the Month and not others.

And I beg brother clergy not to listen to some fiercely hard-line traddies, who actually prefer the Novus Ordo to be done in a certain sort of way, including ad populum, and as badly as possible, so that the Extraordinary Form is left as the only solution still on offer to the the crisis facing Catholic Worship (as Cardinal Sarah recently described it). This attitude is quite simply (IMO) sectarian and divisive and elitist.

Readers from the Anglican Patrimony will also recall the persecutions, more than a century ago, unloaded upon our own clergy who were restoring worship ad Orientem; and the trial (and trials) of the saintly bishop Edward King of Lincoln. (To think that the same battles, apparently, now have to be refought in the Catholic Church! How persuasive the Enemy is!)

Since the Cardinal's latest book is on the subject of Silence, the Anglican Patrimony can also offer the following supportive words from C S Lewis's Screwtape Letters.

The devil Screwtape says: Music and Silence - how I detest them both! ... Noise, the grand dynamism, the audible expression of all that is exultant, ruthless and virile - Noise which alone defends us from silly qualms, despairing scruples, and impossible desires. We will make the whole universe a noise in the end. ... The melodies and silences of Heaven will be shouted down in the end. ...


Cardinal Sarah, dear Eminence: this poor Ordinariate member, at least, offers his prayers for you; and admires your courage as much as he does your wisdom.

The Universal Church is very much in your debt. God bless you.

I look forward to attending Fr. H's one event in Manhattan when he is here this week. Too bad he's not saying Mass at the event, but he will speak on "Kasperism and the aspirations of episcopal conferences" at the Old St. Patrick's Cathedral in lower New York on Tuesday evening.

Fr H is visiting at the invitation of the Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, where he said Mass today at their headquarters in Norwalk, Connecticut, and later spoke about "Could a pope abolish the Extraordinary Form?"

Two other events - and personages - on the Manhattan Catholic's bonus calendar this month:
1. On Saturday, Oct. 22, Ratzinger Prize winner Prof Remi Brague will give the inaugural lecture on faith and culture named for the late Fr. Lorenzo Albacete, theologian, physicist, author and former director of the C&L movement in the USA. He died in 2014 at age 73. The lecture will be given at the new Fulton Sheen Center in lower Manhattan.
2. Mons. Athanasius Schneider will be celebrating a Pontifical High Mass at the Faldstool at Holy Innocents on Monday, Oct 24 at 6pm, and a Pontifical Low Mass the following evening at the same time, followed by a talk on "Christ the King and the Social Kingship of Christ".


TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 16 ottobre 2016 23:19
Oct. 16, 2016 headlines

PewSitter:


PewSitter's subset of secondary headlines includes a round-up of the latest Islam-related news and multiple developments on the hyperactive 'arbitrary gender' front...



Canon212.com
TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 17 ottobre 2016 01:23
Did you think JMB has maybe run out of new ideas to show just how humble and modest he is? Think again! I'm surprised this has not made it to the Anglophone blogosphere yet, but two days ago, Lella on her blog linked to this article by Paolo Rodari, about which she expressed her reactions in her typically non-nonsense forthright way... I had a hard time trying to control my gag reflex.

Goodbye, Castel Gandolfo:
Pope Francis renounces the papal summer residence -
after four centuries, it will become a museum

by Paolo Rodari
Translated from

October 14, 2016

VATICAN CITY - Francis surprises yet again. Three and a half years after he decided not to live in the papal apartment on the third floor of the Vatican Apostolic Palace, he is now definitively closing another papal apartment.

This time, it is that occupied by the popes since the 16th century in Castel Gandolfo, which was where Papa Ratzinger spent the first two months of his retirement after having left the Vatican on February 28, 2013.

Starting this October 21, the papal apartment in the Apostolic Palace at Castel Gandolfo - which had always been available for the popes since Urban VIII made it his summer residence in the 17th century - will become part of a museum. The Vatican is adding it to the other rooms of the Apostolic Palace which for years have been available for visitors and tourists to visit.

This pope never used this apartment. He has chosen to stay in Casa Santa Marta in the summer. A key word in his pontificate is sharing. And so, he has decided that the Apostolic Palace, unused since he became Pope [at least after Benedict XVI left the papal apartment on May 1, 2013], should be shared with the public. [Great way to 'share'! Should he not then, by the same token, open the papal apartment at the Vatican to tourists - so everyone can have the experience of standing at the study window from which the last popes have given their Sunday Angelus homilies?]

It is precisely in the spirit of sharing [????] that the museum will be inaugurated with a concert of Chinese popular music. "Beauty unites us" is the title for the event that illustrates this pope's desire to build bridges, including cultural ones, with everyone, especially China, increasingly the focus of Vatican diplomacy under Bergoglio.

The heretofore private rooms of the popes in CastelGandolfo that Bergoglio is opening to the pubic includes the main bedroom, a beautiful room with the windows opening out on Lake Albano, certainly the most private of all the rooms.

After the American landings in Anzio, central Italy in January 1944, the areas surrounding Castel Gandolfo became one of the bloodiest scenes of battle between the Allied troops and the retreating Germans.

At that time, Pius XII had already transformed Castel Gandolfo into a camp for Jewish refugees and other targets of Nazi and Fascist persecution. He assigned the bedroom, along with other rooms in the palace, for the use of women who were giving birth. Around forty children, later called 'the pope's children', were born on the pope's bed.

Next to this bedroom is the small private chapel used by the popes. It is here that Benedict XVI and his new successor knelt together in prayer on March 21, several days after the latter was elected.

Then there is the Holy Father's library and study, where the popes have written encyclicals and homilies, and which were also used by their secretaries and staff.

Then the wellknown Salone degli Svizzeri, named for the Swiss Guard who had initially used the hall as an armory, and up to the time of Benedict XVI, used for large papal audiences. There is also a Consistory Hall, which was meant for any meetings of the college of cardinals with the pope.

But this Friday, all this will just be memories. At least, while Bergoglio is pope.

It is not impossible that Castel Gandolfo will revert to what it was from the time of John XXIII, who loved it because it enabled him to escape by himself when he wanted to, visiting nearby villages, the hills or the lake, and being with the people.

Or of John Paul II who had a swimming pool built for his use, and who would occasionally play hide-and-seek with the children of the palace staff who live within the estate.

Benedict XVI, of course, loved 'il castello': When he was there in the summers, he played the piano in the evenings, especially his beloved Mozart, along with Bach and Beethoven.

Pius XI had been responsible for setting up the farm within the estate, with vegetable gardens, orchards, poultry, and milking cows, which to this day provides produce not just for the pope in the Vatican but also the Vatican supermarket.

Beatrice affixes this brief news report from AFP, remarkable for its sanctimonious phoniness:

Pope Francis has definitively renounced the splendors of his summer palace in Castel Gandolfo, 25 km southeast of Rome, by opening its private rooms to tourists, the Vatican announced Friday.

The Argentine pope, champion of simplicity, had already rejected from the start the sumptuous papal apartment in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace, preferring to occupy three rooms of a residence in the little city state....


[First of all, an entire wing of Casa Santa Marta, a four-star hotel and not just some 'residence', had to be converted into the Bergoglian apartment. He may have only three rooms for his exclusive use, but the wing also has to accommodate his private staff and his 24-hour security. And I doubt he has changed the massive wooden bed pictured in his bedroom to a cot.

Also, note the loaded - and false - adjectives used to describe the papal apartments Bergoglio has refused to use. 'Splendors' and 'sumptuous' certainly do not describe the apartments as they are - we've all seen enough pictures to know the rooms are spartan and functional.]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 18 ottobre 2016 00:00


It's not too late to do it, but why didn't our pope, so famously ostentatious of his Marian devotion, think of declaring anything special for the centenary of the Fatima apparitions? You might think that the very hullaballoo in the Protestant world over the Reformation Jubilee in 2017 might have reminded him the Catholic Church has its own extraordinary Jubilee Year to mark next year, without having to 'ride on' anyone's coattails as he will be doing on Halloween...


A Fatima Holy Year?

October 16, 2016

Last Thursday was the 99th anniversary of the last Fatima Apparition: the one which included the Miracle of the Sun. Next year, May 13 is the centenary of the First Apparition.

We get a lot of Special Years. Some are more overtly successful than others. Pius XII had a liking for Marian Years. I had great hopes of the Pauline Year, a joint initiative of the Sees of Rome and New Rome, since I feel close to the S Paul whose epistles I taught for nearly three decades, to the great benefit of myself, whatever the experience may have done to my students. Pope Benedict hoped that the Year of Faith would open the pages of Vatican II.

Now we have the Year of Mercy; its spiritual graces are known to God. But in PR terms, it has been cleverly managed; all those doors have served to keep the idea alive in the minds of many.

2017 should be a Fatima Year. Clearly, the Vatican has not pronounced it such. But Papal bright ideas are not the only gifts the Almighty has for his Church. It is open to bishops, priests, and people to create a Holy Year which, rather than being imposed from above upon us below, arises spontaneously from the love God has set in our hearts for His immaculate Mother ... a Holy Year by popular acclamation and devotion.

Arrangement are in hand for the Travelling Statue, blessed by Roman Pontiffs, to tour this country accompanied by relics of two of the visionaries ... I wonder if it will include Oxford in its travels. Many will recall the spectacular grace-filled visit of [relics of] St Therese in 2009: the Oratory crawling with Pontifical Masses, Private Masses, queues for the confessionals, Solemn EF Vespers, Rosaries galore...

The most holy Theotokos protected Christendom from Islamic onslaughts so many times over two millennia; who would have thought that we would be calling on the hypermakhos strategos (advocate-general) yet again in this third millennium? Has she got to do it all over again?

"...Pounding from the slaughter-painted poop, Purpling all the ocean like a bloody pirate's sloop, Scarlet running over on the silver and the golds, Breaking of the hatches up and bursting of the holds...". [The lines, describing victorious fleet commander Don Juan of Austria, come from Chesterton's great poem Lepanto, written in 1911, celebrating the victory of the Holy League in the 1571 Battle of Lepanto over the Ottoman fleet of Ali Pasha, a victory against overwhelming odds attributed to Our Lady of the Rosary.]

In our own Western societies, our home-grown corruptions are, possibly, even more corrosively dangerous than the external threats because we have grown resigned to them. We can arrange our own domestic problems for the Victrix of Lepanto to line up in her sights.

The Victory is already won. Her Son has said tharseite, ego nenikeka ton kosmon (Take courage: I have conquered the world) (John 16:33), where the Greek perfect tense nenikeka indicates a present fact constituted by a decisive action in the past. The Victory is there; mopping up operations are all that is left.

That is why our Lady of Victories can confidently predict: My Immaculate Heart will prevail.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 18 ottobre 2016 00:41


Once in a while - even during this ascendancy of the church of Bergoglio - one gets a happy orthodox surprise from a prelate of the one true
Church of Christ whose surname is not Sarah, Burke or Schneider. Many thanks to Carl Olson for sharing with us his diocesan bishop's very healthy
views on AL. What a refreshing gust of fresh air in the schizophrenic but more-often-liberal Catholic hierarchy in the USA!


Abp. Alexander Sample of Portland discusses
his pastoral letter on 'Amoris Laetitia'

"As difficult as it can be, and as much of a cross it might be for us,
God’s grace enables us to overcome our struggles, even with sin."

Interview
by Carl Olson, Editor

October 17, 2016

During the first week of October, His Excellency Archbishop Alexander K. Sample of Portland, Oregon, issued "A True and Living Icon", a 13-page "Pastoral Letter on the Reading of Amoris Laetitia in Light of Church Teaching". While addressed to the "Priests, Deacons, Religious and Faith" of the Archdiocese of Portland, the letter has garnered significant attention beyond western Oregon.

Archbishop Sample graciously responded, via e-mail, to several questions about his letter. Below is the full interview.

What was the main reasons for this pastoral letter at this time? Were there specific questions being raised within the Archdiocese, or did you anticipate certain questions and situations based on events outside of the Archdiocese?
When Amoris Laetitia was first released, I indicated that we all needed time to read and reflect on our Holy Father’s message before making practical application here in the Archdiocese of Portland. I myself needed time to digest the content before responding.

I was also surprised by how the Exhortation of Pope Francis was being misused in some circles in ways that were not consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church. I said at the time of its release that I would follow up at some point with further guidance. We had our annual convocation of priests, and I believed it to be the right time to share my guidance with them before releasing it to the wider Archdiocese.

Your letter opens with a strong emphasis on the Trinitarian and Christocentric foundations of the Church's teaching about marriage and family. Do you think those foundational truths need to be better emphasized and understood? Put another way, how much of the confusion and controversy surrounding the Church's teaching on marriage is rooted in lacking understanding of what She teaches about God as Trinity and Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
This is precisely the point. I am afraid that we continue to reap the bad fruit of decades now of poor catechesis on the very nature of marriage and family life. How else can we explain the acceptance of a redefinition of marriage on the part of so many Catholics? A proper and sound theological basis for our understanding of marriage must precede any pastoral efforts to strengthen and help marriages.

Marriage comes from the hand of the Creator, and we must understand it in the light of this revelation and even the natural law dimension of the marital covenant. Marriage and family reflect the inner life of the Holy Trinity as a communion of persons. It also reflects the permanent and indissoluble covenant Christ has entered into with us through the blood of his crosS.

"Social contexts do not cause human nature or the human good;" you write, "indeed, only an invariant human good allows us to understand the idea of moral development within human history." Is this, in many ways, the central issue at hand today when it comes to gender ideology, homosexuality, and sexuality in general? How can Catholics better present and explain the Church's rich teaching about anthropology and the meaning of human existence?
This is a serious challenge that the Church must take up with confidence and a renewed vigor. It is very difficult to have a discussion within the Church and with the wider community of society if we cannot even agree on the essential nature of the human person as he or she comes from the hand of the Creator.

We are created in the image and likeness of God and exist according to his plan. We cannot define who we are. God has already done that. It is up to us to humbly accept the nature that he has given to us while helping those who are confused to discover this truth which ultimately brings true happiness and freedom. This education, for our own Catholic people, has to start in the family itself and from the very earliest levels of education in our Catholic schools and faith formation programs.

Your focus is on "troublesome misuses" of AL, and you look in detail at three such misuses. What are the sources of these misuses and why are they apparently so prevalent today?
In many ways my pastoral letter is a re-presentation of some aspects of our Catholic moral tradition, rooted in Sacred Scripture and developed throughout the centuries by the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit.

Again, we are reaping the ill fruits of decades of confusion on the morality of human actions. Some have sought to capitalize on this confusion by continuing to offer moral analysis that is not consistent with this sacred Tradition. Pope St. John Paul II sought to clarify these erroneous understandings in his monumental papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor. That is why I rely heavily on his teaching in my own pastoral letter. [Not surprisingly, AL contains not one single reference to Veritatis splendor (Splendor of the Truth), considered to be one of the most comprehensive and philosophical teachings of moral theology in the Catholic tradition. Obviously, many assertions in AL cannot stand the light of truth.]

The first misuse you address has to do with conscience. What is, in your experience as priest and bishop, are the central misunderstandings or distortions about conscience?
As I state in my pastoral letter, it boils down to an erroneous understanding of conscience as a law unto itself. We must indeed obey our conscience, but we must be operating with a well formed conscience. We form our conscience according to the mind of Christ and the teaching of the Church as revealed in the Sacred Scriptures and in the magisterial teaching of Tradition.

The teachings of Christ and his Church are not to be taken as simply suggestions that we are free to accept, accept in part, or reject altogether. We have the duty to inform our conscience in consonance with the truth revealed to us by God.

Conscience can be in error, and it is the duty of the pastors of the Church to vigorously teach the truths revealed to us in order to help our people properly form their consciences. This will enable us to make moral choices that are pleasing to God.


The second misuse addressed is the notion that "Under Certain Conditions Divine Prohibitions Admit of Exceptions", and you make a clear distinction, drawing on St. John Paul II, between the positive commandments and the negative commandments. Why is that distinction so significant?
Because by following the divine commandments we achieve our true happiness both in this present life, but more importantly in eternity. God commands us to do good and avoid evil, simply put. God gives us the positive commandment to do good, for example by living the Beatitudes and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

But an individual’s obligation in this regard can vary from one to another, depending on one’s own state in life and personal circumstances. In other words, there is room for individual responses to these positive commands. But negative commandments, the “Thou shall not” commandments admit of no exceptions in the objective.

Generally speaking, no one is forced to act in an evil manner against the commandments of God. One’s personal culpability for sinful actions can be diminished, or even eliminated, if acting out of inculpable ignorance or without full freedom, but the divine negative command still applies in all circumstances. This is an important point that we must be clear about.

We must help and accompany those who do not fully live up to this moral obligation. This can happen gradually in a person’s life, but that does not mean that the divine command gradually applies. It always applies.


The third misuse is the incorrect belief that "Human Frailty Exempts from Divine Command", and it touches on something that seems to be, so to speak, "in the water": the assumption that God's grace really might not be sufficient for everyone or for every situation. How are the current confusions informed by this failure of faith?
We must be reminded of St. Paul’s own struggle with the “thorn in the flesh”, whatever that might have been. He struggled and begged God to remove this from his life. The Lord responded with an assurance that his grace would be enough for St. Paul. We do not know if St. Paul was specifically struggling with sin or sinful temptations, but nevertheless, do we believe that God’s grace is sufficient in our own struggles with sin? Speaking for myself, I believe and know that to be true.

God does not ask of us the impossible. As difficult as it can be, and as much of a cross it might be for us at a time in our life, God’s grace enables us to overcome our struggles, even with sin. If we don’t believe this, then we are doomed to despair and are lost in the darkness. That is the heart of God’s mercy shown to us in the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Savior.

We must believe and trust in the grace of his mercy and love. We must help those who struggle to believe that their lives can indeed be transformed by the cross of Christ and the power of God’s grace.

What sort of responses have you received so far to the letter?
For the most part the response has been very positive. I have received many supportive messages from laity, priests and even some of my brother bishops.

Of course there will always be detractors, but that must never stop us from proclaiming the fullness of God’s mercy rooted in the truth he has revealed to us.
Questa è la versione 'lo-fi' del Forum Per visualizzare la versione completa clicca qui
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 00:34.
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com