Much has been made of the May 3rd meeting that took place in Rome between certain members of the German Bishops Conference and representatives of the Holy See to discuss the former’s controversial so-called “pastoral handout” allowing the Protestant spouse of a Catholic to receive Holy Communion under certain Bergoglian conditions.
According to the German Bishops’ news service:
A precondition is that the Protestant partner “after a deep discernment in a spiritual conversation with the priest or another pastoral worker comes to the decision of conscience to affirm the Faith of the Catholic Church, as well as to end a ‘serious spiritual situation of emergency’ and to wish to fulfill the yearning for the Eucharist,” according to the final report. (see article at LifeSite News)
In mid-April, it was initially reported by the usually reliable Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register that the Holy See, at the direction of Francis, had rejected the proposal:
Sources confirm that, with the Holy Father’s approval, the Vatican’s head of doctrine has thrown out the bishops’ proposal allowing Holy Communion for some Protestant spouses, but the Pope wishes the rejection letter to remain secret.
We now know that this isn’t true as the May 3rd meeting in Rome resulted in the following report from the Vatican Press Office:
During the meeting, held in German, Archbishop Ladaria explained that Pope Francis appreciates the ecumenical commitment of the German Bishops and asks them to find, in a spirit of ecclesial communion, a possibly unanimous result.
In reaction to this, many in Catholic media are reporting that His Humbleness has refused to make a decision.
Catholic Herald, for instance, said “The Vatican punted.”
The Bergoglian News Agency (CNA) maintained, “Vatican returns the ball to German bishops.”
Catholic Culture wrote, “Pope declines to rule,” while further reporting:
Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht has strongly criticized Pope Francis for declining to answer questions about the German bishops’ proposal for intercommunion. “The Holy Father should have given the delegation of the German episcopal conference clear directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church,” the cardinal said.
If there is anything to the old saying, Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, there’s an awful lot of shame to go around in this case, to say nothing of the preponderance of fools.
C’mon, folks. We’ve seen this act before, haven’t we?
It is perfectly obvious that Francis has indeed given clear directives in this case; for one, just by calling for the meeting, and for another, based on who was present. As for the request that the bishops seek a “possibly unanimous result,” this is secondary and ultimately meaningless.
Among the representatives of the Holy See at the May 3rd meeting were Archbishop Luis F. Ladaria, Prefect of the CDF; Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and the Under-Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.
This tells us everything we need to know:
As far as the man that some still call “Holy Father” is concerned, the German Bishops’ proposal is A) matter of “Christian unity;” B) one that pertains to “the doctrine of the faith” as a whole, and C) is entirely doable – not just for Germany – but Universally as the latter Pontifical Council’s mandate “consists above all in the interpretation of the laws of the Church.” (see its official Profile)
While it is true that the Amoris Laetitia affair, Bergoglio’s apparent silence in the face of public admonishments like the dubia, and his endorsement of the guidelines established by the Bishops of Buenos Aires are instructive in the present case, that sword cuts both ways.
Many have criticized the “confusion” resulting from Amoris Laetitia vis-à-vis the fact that the guidelines for the reception of Holy Communion in one nation may differ entirely from those of a neighboring region; the charge being that this undermines the unity of the Church and is thus untenable.
But guess what?
Bergoglio also finds this untenable! He just happens to be diabolically subtle enough to play the long game.
Mark my words, folks, barring either Divine intervention or the death of this heretical despot, the time will come when Bergoglio will insist upon the creation and implementation of norms for the Universal Church that reflect his unholy will.
At best, he is willing to temporarily tolerate faithfulness to Catholic tradition as a means to an end; ultimately, however, he lives to crush it.
All of this having been said, neither the Amoris Laetitia affair nor the German Bishops’ “pastoral handout” scandal are exclusively Bergoglian in nature; rather, they are conciliar.
Much has been written in this space with regard to the former. As for the latter, one need only look at the 1983 Code of Canon law, which was created specifically to reflect the Council’s novelties:
Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
- If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.
- For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community. [Emphasis added]
Let’s dissect this lunacy, shall we.
Other grave necessity…
And just what might that be? Answer: Whatever in the Hell one wants it to be!
With this in mind, is it really all that shocking that the German Bishops cite a “serious spiritual situation of emergency” as a condition for the reception of Holy Communion by a Protestant who rejects the Catholic faith but still wants the gifts dispensed therefrom?
In the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops…
Clearly, the German bishops are acting within their competency. In fact, they are only acting within a portion of their competency by addressing only heretics who are married to Catholics! An open call for heretics to receive Communion is right around the corner – believe it.
Who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it…
This is the key to understanding this entire dust up.
It’s no secret that Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t really believe that the Blessed Sacrament is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but neither does the conciliar church itself!
How do we know this?
Just connect the dots. As Canon 844 § 4 clearly implies, the Most Holy Eucharist is simply the Catholic version of the “it” that is handed out in the heretical communities.
And where did this notion come from?
The seeds were planted at the almighty Council:
The brethren divided from us [Editor’s note: the heretics] also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. (UR 3)
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (cf John 6)
If, as the Council states, the “liturgical actions” carried out by the heretics (the “it” of Canon 844 § 4) is capable of engendering “salvation,” well then, it must be the same that Catholics receive that we may “live forever” just as Jesus taught.
Provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed…
Many are fooled by this caveat, but let’s not be among them: The “Catholic faith” to which it refers is not the immutable Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, but rather the conciliar faith that we just reviewed.
The local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.
Notice that Canon 844 § 4 doesn’t require the input of the Holy See, but does insist upon “consultation” with a heretic community leader (aka, the owner of the local Protestant Christo-business.)
Why should this be so?
Well, because the almighty Council said that these heretical operations are such that “Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation!” (ibid.)
In other words, it’s a courtesy to Christ (more properly, the conciliar caricature thereof) to confirm that the heretic make-believe minister / business owner is OK with the Catholics serving “it” to a person that by all rights is their customer.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating…
In a twisted way, the Bergoglian regime is a Godsend in that it is so plainly at war with the Catholic faith that only a fool can possibly deny the real problem.
What can we expect from this modernized enlightened church?
Listen to the video interview of the State Atty General at the bottom of this article, keeping in mind that this is only a replay of hundreds of thousands of cases.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2018/05/08/AG-josh-Shapiro-erie-priest-david-poulson-charged-sexual-abuse-pennsylvania-grand-jury/stories/201805080080
Corruption is from the very top to the very ground and if they abolish the SOL, we will have a much poorer church in which real Catholics should only donate and only attend Masses celebrated by priests they are sure reverence the ancient Truths and Traditions of the Faith.
The point of my post with the accompanying article and news video , is that time and time again Diocesan Grand Jury investigations discover in the secret Diocesan files that pederasts are still assigned to parishes with access to children despite full knowledge they will rape and sodomize again.
There is a shortage of priests ( with good reason) so keeping these pervs supplying parishes with a 25 minute mass and collecting donations is weighed against attacks on children and the collection plate wins.
Lawyers are fully aware only 90% of the victims will ever come forward because for males it is just too embarrassing.
So here we are wondering about the future of the Nervous Order Church ?
One answer…….UNHOLY !
Yes, this all started with Vatican II and the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Prior to both, a non-Catholic had to convert to the Catholic Faith before receiving communion. Period.
More sickening thoughts to ponder:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1097&bih=550&ei=wdTxWvTrNoSp_QaXobKIDg&q=land%27s+end+sayville+ny&oq=land%27s+end+sayville+ny&gs_l=img.12..0i24k1.1237.8393.0.12972.22.14.0.8.8.0.161.1335.10j3.13.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..1.21.1505…0j0i10k1j0i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i10i24k1.0.qxrg8QVsf5c
I apologize for the above. Obviously, the wrong link was attached by the demon lurking in my computer. I’ll try to attach the intended one.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/07/met-galas-2018-catholic-church-theme-stirs-up-controversy-on-social-media.html
What word comes to mind when you see a “prince” of the Church participating in this openly blatant and obvious mocking of the Catholicism?
https://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2018/05/met-gala-heavenly-bodies-open-attack-on.html
Anyone ? Anyone blessed with the gift of discernment? No one?
I still have a hard time believing that the number of protestant spouses desiring Holy Communion is breaking down any church doors. Just another fabricated “problem” made up by the fake church to help finish off the job of destroying anything resembling Catholicism.
Personally I agree and even if they went to one of the usual RCIA parish classes ,do you think they would learn anything? my husband and friend came home laughing about questions they asked that went unanswered and asked me when they came home. Neither the Deacon or nun could answer why one genuflects when passing by the altar !
The Tabernacle was still there in our local RC parish at the time.
Yes, heretics went through the actual and lengthy procedures to become a Catholic, including making an Abjuration. Now, if the 1983 Code is actually invalid as it must be, where does it leave Novus Ordo “Catholics” (heretics) who “return” to Tradition and want to be accepted back or into the true Church (including myself)? According to true Church law, one cannot receive the Sacraments prior to making the Abjuration. Even if there was a valid Mass somewhere, I couldn’t receive Communion nor could I even avail myself to Confession until I was LAWFULLY accepted into the Church. This fact is so utterly frightening, and unknown, that whenever I’ve brought this subject up, not even one person responded! This is just yet another proof that what’s in Rome is of Satan. He’s got it all covered with the “new” everything eclipsing the True.
The only thing that makes sense is that they are not priests in the first place. What a relief. As such, they obviously don’t even have the Grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Same for “Bishops”. Hence we have Timothy Dolans running around at sacrilegious fashion shows, or supporting the murder of a toddler in the UK and euthanasia in TX, and crying out for more “migrants”, etc etc etc etc etc. ad nauseaum. Simple.
For your photo archives of what happened to Catholicism in America
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/05/met-catholic-fashions-father-james-martin
I don’t think you need the gift of discernment to come up with the word “creep”.
Dear A Simple Beggar,
Find a Roman Catholic priest–SSPX ( ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop consecrated to the Roman Rite) and ask to abjure your heresy in confession. You may be able to find an independent, sedevacantist, or FSSP priest who is former SSPX–whether it will be licit is another story, but it will be valid! God Bless!
It all comes down to EENS (outside the Church, no salvation). If a heretic spouse can be saved, objectively speaking, then why not let them receive communion. EENS was dealt with and dispensed with by Pius XII in 1949 with the Letter from the Holy Office against Father Feeney.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1467
Vatican II right up through Pope Bergoglio are just following this to it’s logical conclusion.
“outside the Church, no salvation”–If the N.O. V2 church is not Catholic, then everyone in the N.O. church is outside the church and, therefore, no salvation. Did I get that right?
If you go back to what St Vincent of Lerins defines as remaining Catholic , then the Orthodox are also catholic. something to think about when looking back at how the RC Church has changed and added.
Something to think long and hard about and to study from all sides is the continuing evolution in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Faith did not begin and end with the Council of Trent………..I can hear the screams now.
But remember Fr Feeney himself always said ,”Of course we believe in God’s Mercy”. Why? Because believe it or not ONLY Jesus Christ reads hearts.
when Bobby Kennedy came into St Benedict’s Ctr in Harvard Square he demanded to know if Fr Feeney was the priest who was telling his friends they were going to Hell. his reply was ,”I am telling your friends the sure way to get to Heaven.”
Mother Teresa who cared for him till his death was a dear friend of mine. God rest her dear sweet soul.
I believe the Council of Trent, and by extension, “Quo Primum” of Saint Pius V, put an end to the development of the liturgy, even so called organic development. In other words, the Traditional Roman mass was “canonized” along with other rites already 200 years older in the year 1570—which would include the Orthodox rites. The “old” Latin Vulgate Bible was also canonized.
–
I think the Orthodox are lacking in the proper Catholic belief in Papal authority and along with that, Papal Infallibility. And if we accept that infallible definitions, by councils, or the Pope alone, are properly, the confirming of apostolic tradition, whether implicitly or explicitly, then I believe we are firmly in line with St. Vincent of Lerins famous quote:
–
“Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.”
Your interpretation of Quo Primum and EENS are wrong. You are trying to imply a defectible church and your interpretation is heretical.
When did we first title the Bishop of Rome ,”Pope”?
In defense of the East I would also mention that they considered a Council should represent the full Church both East and West as were the first seven. I believe it was the fourth council of Toledo of which the Eastern Churches were not invited to be represented when the Filioque was changed and in deference to the slight by design by the Spanish episcopate , JP2 rescinded the change back to it’s original when the Christian Church in Council with full Apostolic Succession, first approved it.
Mr. Verrecchio: “Bergoglio’s apparent silence in the face of PUBLIC ADMONISHMENTS LIKE THE DUBIA…”
–
Comment: This is preposterous. A dubium is no more a “public admonishment” (monitum) than a monitum is a dubium. The one is a question, the other is a warning/correction. They are distinct in their formal object.
–
If it is being suggested that the unanswered dubia suffice or are in any way equivalent to the multiple solemn warnings (solemnem monitionem) that are required before a pope will fall from the pontificate for heresy, it manifests a profound ignorance of the subject matter and serves as yet another example of the similarities between Modernism and sede-vacantism. In this case, the similarity is to be found not only in CAUSE of ignorance, but in the METHOD employed, viz., using Catholic TERMINOLOGY while giving it different MEANING.
I have no idea what you mean by “trying to imply a defectible church.”
–
When you make a comment like this you should be more specific otherwise YOU are implying that I am wrong simply because of your self anointed personal authority.
Pius XII did not dispense with EENS. You are implying he contradicted this dogma of faith. Many “trads” have tried to make the case that other Popes taught heresy so they can justify their position that there is precedent for the concilar popes teaching heresy. If this were true, the Church would defect from the faith.
By his silencing of Father Feeney Pius XII “implied” that EENS was all but dispensed with. And, as you know, the famous “Letter from the Holy Office Concerning Fr. Leonard Feeney” stated that membership in the Church can be had by “implicit” desire. In other words, a “good” native on an island is saved. This was Pius XII’s style. He would write nice pious sounding encyclicals with no teeth and then let the modernists run wild. I don’t think that I have heard anyone say or imply (including myself) that Pius XII was a heretic, but in his long pontificate he did a whole lot of damage.
My2cents, no you did not get that right. The EENS dogma has a distinction between internal and external forums. Only God judges the soul. Externally, the Church teaches that there are no means of salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The Church never judges internals. The Church teaches that only those who have sanctifying grace at death are saved. God can give this grace to whomever He wishes. But the Church cannot. The Church can only administer external signs of sanctifying grace (baptism, confession, extreme unction). Therefore, the Church cannot give a Christian Burial to a non Catholic since there was never an external sign of communion. But internally, God may have sent that non Catholic an angel or other extraordinary means prior to death in order that the soul be united to the Church. That is what is meant by Invincible Ignorance. A native on some island will not be damned because he never had a chance to join the Church. He may be damned for other sins for which he has no way of having them absolved, but he wont be damned for rejecting the Church. Feenyites mistakenly misinterpret this teaching and think it means that a soul can be saved by being invincibly ignorant. It is not what the Church teaches. Novus Ordites, R&Rers, and Sedes, who in good faith desire to follow the true Roman Pontiff will not be guilty of schism. Even if their judgment allows them to follow the wrong Pope, they will not be guilty on this account. But back to your original question. A Novus Ordite follows a false religion and externally is not a member of the Church. He or She should not receive sacraments at a trad chapel unless they abjure their errors and reject the concilar church. The notion that trads share the same faith as the NO is absurd.
Tom A–My comment was “tongue in cheek”. However, I agree with your explanation. Thanks. I often wonder of the wording should be “Without the Catholic Church, there is no salvation”. I tend to believe that salvation comes through the True Church established by Christ. Anyone who is in Heaven or on the way to Heaven (Purgatory) was saved through Our Lord’s Church by His special grace, as you described.
Hey Tom A., last time I checked, Feeneyites, so called, believe in the necessity of baptism. So maybe you got your wires crossed in your last comment.
–
Regarding the “native on an island” or anyone “invincibly ignorant”, well, you are presuming that they exist. But if you know about them what are you going to do about them Tom? What is the duty of the Church at this point? Do we theorize about the internal forum and such and save them all by our great thinking, or do we get on a plane, train, or boat, and preach the faith and baptism?
–
So what about the Novus “Ordites”? You know they are out there so what is your duty in the external forum, to theorize and condemn or to go out and preach? I would be worrying how God is going to judge my words and actions rather than how He will judge the internal disposition of others.