In follow-up to my post examining the Vatican’s recently published Document of the Pre-Synodal Meeting with “young representatives,” today we will highlight other noteworthy portions of the text.
Bear in mind as we go that the “reflections” conveyed in the Document are actually attributable to Jorge Bergoglio and his merry band of modernists; the “young” are simply being exploited as a means to a predetermined end.
About that end…
Early in the text, we find the following caveat:
It is important at the outset to clarify the parameters of this document. It is neither to compose a theological treatise, nor is it to establish new Church teaching. Rather, it is a statement reflecting the specific realities, personalities, beliefs and experiences of the young people of the world.
Further into the text, we are told:
The outcomes of these reflections should be formalized through an official Church document.
Add it all up, and what do you get?
Another Amoris Laetitia – a post-synodal “Apostolic Exhortation” (so-called) that, according to its proponents, “doesn’t change any doctrines,” but which undermines immutable teaching by way of outright blasphemy and heresy, and/or by setting the stage for “pastoral” programs that are utterly incompatible with it.
And why not?
Amoris Laetitia has been a boon for the Bergoglian party!
You see, they now know that the only pushback they will likely encounter from another heresy laden text are yet more benign petitions, requests for clarification, corrections, appeals, and perhaps even another dubia; none of which represents anything more than a speedbump to these guys.
The 2018 pre-synodal Document further indicates that Amoris Laetitia has become the blueprint for future attacks against the Faith as it goes on to declare:
The Church oftentimes appears as too severe and is often associated with excessive moralism … We need a Church that is welcoming and merciful, which appreciates its roots and patrimony and which loves everyone, even those who are not following the perceived standards… Erroneous ideals of model Christians feel out of reach to the average person and thus so do the rules set by the Church. Therefore, for some, Christianity is perceived as an unreachable standard.
Unreachable standards… out of reach rules… erroneous ideals…
Dismissing traditional Catholic teaching as such (in particular as it concerns morality) is precisely the formula applied by Team Bergoglio in Amoris Laetitia.
As pointed out in my previous post on this Document, it paints Church teaching on such matters as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, cohabitation, marriage and the priesthood as nothing more than “polemical issues” about which there is much disagreement.
Catholic teaching on cohabitation and marriage have already been decimated (by Synods 2015 and 2016, Amoris Laetitia, and its aftermath). We should, therefore, expect to see any one or all of the remaining teachings to be turned upside down following Synod 2018 via a similar text.
The Document goes on to say:
…Catholics whose convictions are in conflict with official teaching [such as those listed above] still desire to be part of the Church.
In other words, it’s time we come to terms with just how big this tent really is (unless, of course, you are a lover of Catholic tradition.)
If only you’ve been baptized, believe whatever you like, do whatever suits your fancy, and rest assured – even if you obstinately and publicly reject that which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith – you’re still a member of the Mystical Body of Christ in good standing!
This notion is also part and parcel of the Amoris Laetitia blueprint:
It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. They are not excommunicated and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community. (AL 243)
Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members. (AL 299)
Not only does Jorge Bergolgio believe in permanent, irrevocable membership in the Church, so too, apparently, does every priest, bishop, cardinal and layman that continues to call him “pope” in spie of all that has transpired over the last several years.
Heck, even some longtime members of the “traditionalist” media still insist on calling him “Holy Father;” a sure sign that they have been infected, and very deeply so, with neo-conservatism.
Yes, Amoris Laetitia has thus far proven to be a winning formula for the enemies of the Church. As such, it’s a safe bet that it will be applied rather liberally in the future; in particular, in the aftermath of future synods.
Anytime an announcement, pronouncement and/or denounce(ment) comes out of Rome, I read the text (Lord, help me). followed by Louie’s analysis (Thank you, Louie!). Then I pull up “The Best Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre, I and II”.
The air is cleared, sanity is restored and the abiding peace and joy of being a believing (traditional) Catholic is restored.
Yes because Abp Lefebrve is the gatekeeper of Tradition. Look, I agree with you that in the practical matter we can assume that everything coming out of modernist Rome is heretical and Abp Lefebrve’s writings are in line with magesterial teachings. But in the Catholic Church, it is the Pope we cling to not a run of the mill retired Archbishop. When we have to abandoned this principle and reject what comes from modernist Rome, that should tell us something about the essence of those in modernist Rome (i.e. they are not Catholic).
ArchBishp Lefevre is deceased ,God grant him eternal rest.
His progeny are left in confusion themselves. As evidences by the Resistance who embrace and defend clerical perverts and are a sad testimony, along with many other non Resistance SSPX priests , to the fact the ArchBishop was not a Pope.
Fake news. Fake Church. Fake pope. Fake Catholics. Fake humans.
The New World Order-one government, one all-encompassing religion to usher in the reign of the Antichrist. It is so close now. But it would not be possible without the support of the fake church and its leaders who have incrementally but surely prepared the sheep to wholeheartedly worship him through the vehicle of the Second Vatican Council which was the most successful inspiration of Satan since his convincing Eve to serve him rather than God to win over the minds, hearts and souls of the greater part of humanity. Christ’s question asking how many with the true faith he would find when He returns is a question more important today than ever before. The gate is narrow and few will pass through. Oh beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, let us pray for each other that we may be one of those few who remain faithful to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
BOTTOM LINE ,it’s all about money !
The institutional church took a huge hit paying out for unfathomable amounts of recompense to clerical abuse victims with added secrecy clauses ( hoping it would never be revealed). They are still fighting tooth and nail ( and paying for high priced lawyers) against legislative efforts to extend the Statutes of Limitations for clerical pederast victims.
“Erroneous ideals of model Christians feel out of reach to the average person and thus so do the rules set by the Church. Therefore, for some, Christianity is perceived as an unreachable standard.”
Translation. No one today can follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles ,especially not our sodomite clergy. We have seen to it over the past fifty years that
the laity doesn’t know the Faith anyway. Now how do we boost our coffers back to the days of the JP2 income? After all, we like our posh digs and lifestyles.
So let’s get rid of the notions of sin and the fires of hell and fill the pews back up.
Look people the day the Bishops made it possible for lay people and Deacons to zip into hospitals with the Eucharist , is the day I knew they did not Believe as I did or as priests used to.
Years ago any Catholic preparing for surgery was entitled and received Extreme Unction.
Remember that Sacrament? Now nurses and pastoral workers on Hospice Teams have to beg a rectory to send a priest to a home , LTC or Assisted Livings. I know because I had to do it and even with four priests in many rectories your call was not returned or they were just too busy. WITH WHAT ?????
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. After a car accident my long time friend who had worked in rectories as a DRE for almost two decades was so disgusted with what she saw, she resigned. In the hospital when two different “Extra” Ordinary Ministers showed up she did not answer she was Catholic. But when an elderly vested priest came in she replied , “I used to be Catholic” and he was so intrigued he came to her bedside and she told hm what she had seen and heard from priests in the rectories. She asked if he would hear her Confession and he told he just did. “What Penance Father , do I have for leaving the Catholic Faith?”
He said ,”My dear the Catholic Faith has left you .You did not leave the Catholic Faith.” He asked her not to reveal his name because the Bishop would stop him from making visits.
One of my dearest friends was a priest who was a pastor devoted to the Rosary. He was a serious diabetic BUT at night he volunteered to go with the EMTs at the local hospital. Since he was elderly and sick himself I asked him why he ran himself so ragged . He answered ,”Because I just might be at an accident where a Catholic victim needs Extreme Unction and I’ll have the opportunity to save a soul from hell.”
Our Lady of Fatima , Help Us!
Tom, that is pretty funny, “run of the mill retired Archbishop”. Can you or any body here name one archbishop before, during or after the Council that upheld the Catholic faith, preserved the Catholic Mass and prepared close to 2,000 priests offering the Mass of All Ages?
The point is Fr Monk, that we Catholics look towards the Pope for Truth and as the defender of that Truth, not retired Archbishops. The fact that we can no longer accept what a “pope” teaches should tell us something about the “pope” who teaches it. Something is terribly wrong when we have to look to an Archbishop for Truth rather than the “pope.”
“Not only does Jorge Bergoglio believe in permanent, irrevocable membership in the Church, so too, apparently, does every priest, bishop, cardinal and layman that continues to call him “pope” in spite of all that has transpired over the last several years. Heck, even some longtime members of the “traditionalist” media still insist on calling him “Holy Father;” a sure sign that they have been infected, and very deeply so, with neo-conservatism.”
Agreed.
Let us face it. This whole debacle about wether this man who sits in the chair of Peter is Pope or not Pope is all rooted in wether he is Catholic or not which in turn is ROOTED in the fact that he DOES NOT UPHOLD the teaching on marriage and THE MEANING OF CONJUGAL RELATIONS. It really should come as to no surprise to anyone reading on this site that this groundwork on redefining marriage’s purpose had begun to be actively redefined since the late 1800s within our Church by the weakest among us who wished to redefine the Catholic doctrines on purity and marriage because they found them too difficult to uphold.
PiusXII was the first one who put in writing that one may PLAN to EXCLUSIVELY HAVE recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. He of course added that only for grave reasons one can practice NFP and, in the modernist style we have all now grown accustomed to, he too, several paragraphs later, makes sure that he, with a forked tongue , still espouses that the primary purpose of procreation and education of children which of course is a blatant contradiction to his promotion of NFP and THIS is precisely what became THE TIMEBOMP that let the snake out of the modernist bag.
I believe every Bishop and Cardinal knows quite well that it is the attitude and words from the Papacy that sets the bar for all Christians in upholding the truths of the Faith in every age.
Irregardless of any previous forked tongues coming from the Vatican, these times are different because rather than ambiguities which could be argued before, we now have a blatant sea change in favor of AntiChristian interpretations of morality and Doctrine.
Now, rather than Theologians saying the Pope meant this or that , we can see more clearly it is all about what the diabolical prince of this world says and does that is guiding the light for the Vatican , document by document inching our way towards Rome becoming the Seat of the AntiChrist.
I was once told that when the communist Freemasons moved in, the Holy Ghost left.
I wished to underline that the practice of the forked tongue is still in practice to this day although it is being more and more revealed as people wake up. They all to this day still persist in mixing truths in with falsehoods in their diabolical writings as though they think this game will continue to fool us.
My point is to say that we must be honest and admit that the straw that broke the camel’s back was not Bergoglio’s words on climate change or immigration that got the so called conservatives in the Novus Order going nuts but Amoris Laetitia and its blatant heresies on the sacrament of marriage which are rooted in the first pronouncements by PIusXII on endorsing NFP. I wish to underline this once again because we need to all come clean on admitting the SERIOUS heresy of NFP.
And that this endorsement of NFP is the foundation of sand that got us to where we are today.
Good morning Anastasia,
Please provide the name of the document in which Pope Pius XII did as you say and preferably a link if possible. Thank you. In caritas.
Greetings In caritas,
Just google Pope PiusXII’s private letter to the Italian midwives. Hope that helps. The conversations within the Church on contraception ( ie NFP) began in the late 1800s.
Problems facing the youth AND elderly.
Cohabitation is becoming more common because amorality is common culture BUT
financially it has become a necessity in many cases.
Before anyone starts screaming . Let’s look at the situation for so many senior citizens. Single elderly are finding it almost impossible to exist on their social security and to remedy the situation there are more than a few co habitating so they can live off double the benefits. The same is happening in the youth population. Working single women are moving in with men to be on their employee health benefit plans and employers know this so more and more are not offering benefits.
Those that do are paying less in salaries while cost of living keeps rising.
That said, young men in the dating scene are actually asking women what the make salary wise when and if they do not have livable employment they are looking to move in with a single young woman who do. This was behind the push for homosexual marriage .
The same with divorce . There are couples who cannot afford a costly divorce so they take the cheap route and if one or the other is physically abusive , there are reasons to separate. Annulments can be costly too.
But rather than looking to change the Laws of God to be “merciful”to society , the Church should have always been working to change morality in line with Christian teachings.
Traditionally the Church focused on women and modesty but they dropped the ball with men. Men and boys should be taught to value women and girls according to Scripture. If women believed modesty in dress and speech was attractive to males most would change . Pop icons like the Kardashians would not be quite so intriguing as youth models.
We forgot the laws God gave in natural subsidiarity !
God gave authority to males and RESPONSIBILITY !
Men need to be taught what it means to love and not just lust.
Chivalry is still there as a natural instinct for good men but purity became synonymous with feminism and even the effeminate in their minds. It turned into something that was unnatural for males and was made fun of as being “gay”( quite the opposite is true).
Machismo and womanizing has become synonymous with the male ego.
Video games and movies mirror the pervasive male culture. James Bond the prolific fornicator ,comes to mind.
Now how is a priesthood, up to 50% or more homosexual , going to uphold Christian morality ? How could they ever effectively preach to men without appearing hypocritical ? How can they preach to women about purity and modesty?
If I were a contributing synod Cardinal I would argue to sweep out the filth first and then start from scratch by educating LAY MEN first with Godly priestly role models.
Alas, if there are any chaste heterosexual Godly Cardinals , they appear as cowards.
Pray the Rosary daily !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation
The Vatican has to look at changing it’s own culture first.
Otherwise, they remain impotent
Anastasia, dear friend, I just read Pius XII’s address to Midwives and it bears no resemblance to your ” quote” that Pius XII gave carte blanche to married couples to use NFP [aka the “safe period”] exclusively!
He said that ANY form of contraception was morally and seriously wrong except for GRAVE social, medical, eugenic or economic reasons when the NFP may be used.
The fact that people abused this guidance doesn’t change the fact that Pius XII made a sound judgement.
The fact also that people are excusing Bergoglio – who is openly and deliberately dismantling our beloved Faith – on the grounds that false information says “Pius XII started it” is beyond belief. May God and His Blessed Mother guide and protect us from the wiles of satan.
I must reiterate my previous comment. Pope Pius XII did NOT endorse NFP. Please read his address to Midwives and Obstetricians again. Then look at Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia and see the difference.
Our Lady of Fatima spoke very clearly about ‘Diabolical Disorientation’ and the fact that it would start at the TOP of the Church. This happened openly during Vatican II, called by the Freemason John XXIII…………. then led by his successor, the Freemason Paul VI [about to be canonized by Bergoglio].
The present Pope wrought havoc on the Catholic Church in Argentina. Who in their right mind would let him off the hook because of previous Popes? God help us.
Katherine, thank you for your short sharp revue of exactly where we are at this moment. The simple truths set down in black and white are heartbreaking. God bless you, dear, I’m keeping a copy for friends and family if you have no objection..
Tom A on Archbishop Lefebrve, a future saint: “run of the mill retired Archbishop”.
What a buffoon.
Sursum, can you not see that this article clearly shows that Bergolio and all the other modernists have devised a brilliant formula to convince Catholics that they can officially promulgate heresy and rely on the obedience of the faithful to submit. Abp Lefebrve did submit. He fell for their lies like 99% of the other Bishops. He signed many V2 documents and only drew his line at saying the new mass. He would have been more than willing to accept a Traditional interpretation of V2 if it could have ever been concocted. And he would have been more than happy to be in communion with some sort of canonical structure. He never drew the only possible logical and truthful conclusion, that Rome was no longer Catholic and Roncalli could not have been Pope since he fell into heresy.
It is lamentable that Archbishop Lefebrve, and all the good prelates since, did not have you at their side as a consigliere to navigate through this diabolical disorientation.
Ave Tom A, gratia plena, dominus tecum…
It truly is lamentable. I will agree with you 100%. It is a shame that most were swayed by sentiments instead of reason, as you clearly demonstrate with each of your successive posts.
This is from PiusXII’s letter to the Italian midwives. Quote
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic [i.e. concerns related to the health of the offspring], economic, and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt for a long period, or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint — and is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons, either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
This is the teachings of NFP although they back then did not use the term as of yet.I believe it was called the rhythm method. Like I say, a drop of heresy in a sea of truths does not make it right. I will post quotes from Scripture, the church fathers who all knew very well the teachings that said that one can NEVER separate the primary purpose of procreation from the secondary purpose of unity of the couple in ACT, WORD or DEED. And one can never subordinate the primary purpose to the secondary purpose. Please read Casti Conubii by Pope PiusXI. If a life is so incredibly at stake then COMPLETE abstinence is the only recourse.Why or why would one want to play Russian Roulette with NFP if a life were really at stake?
To separate the sex act from procreation was considered a perversion of the sex act back in the old days.
Pius XII seriously set the faithful to be misled when he pronounced in his private letter to the midwives that one could for grave reasons have recourse to the infertile period only, in order to avoid conception. This teaching subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose and clearly contradicts his own words in this same address that says-“…the truth that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of new life. The other ends inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it.” NFP subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose when it calculates to have recourse to the infertile period only, in order to avoid having children while hopelessly trying to benefit from the effects of sexual intercourse that is meant by God to unite a couple for the sacred mission of procreation and education of children. This is how NFP is against moral law and Catholic Truth.
Pius XII seriously set the faithful to be misled when he pronounced in his private letter to the midwives that one could plan for grave reasons to have recourse to the infertile period exclusively, in order to avoid conception. This teaching subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose and clearly contradicts his own words in this same address that says-“…the truth that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of new life. THE OTHER ENDS INASMUCH AS THEY ARE INTENDED BY NATURE, ARE NOT EQUALLY PRIMARY, MUCH LESS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIMARY END, BUT ARE ESSENTIALLY SUBORDINATED TO IT ( my emphasis).” NFP subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose when it calculates to have recourse to the infertile period only, in order to avoid having children while hopelessly trying to benefit from the effects of sexual intercourse that is meant by God to unite a couple for the sacred mission of procreation and education of children and not for the personal perfection of the married couple or for their insecurities on unity and bonding. This is how NFP is against moral law and Catholic Truth.
Finally here are some references that I promised you from Scripture, Tradition, Church Fathers, and the Magisterium that support the teachings of the primary purpose of marriage and defends against the heresy that says so called NFP is not contraception and therefore it is not a mortal sin.
Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. & And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children& [Tobias said] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, BUT ONLY FOR THE LOVE OF POSTERITY ( my emphasis), in which Thy name may be blessed for ever and ever. †(Tobias 6:16-17, 22; 8:9)
†
Lactantius,†Divine Institutes,†6:23:18: God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.
Clement of Alexandria,†The Instructor of Children,†2:10:95:3: To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.
St. Jerome,†Against Jovinian†1:19, A.D. 393: But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?
St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:30: For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.
Pope Pius XI,†Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930: To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words Increase and multiply, is beyond the power of any human law. & This is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children .
1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 1013. The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose is to furnish mutual aid and a remedy for concupiscence