Dr. Maike Hickson, whose insights into the activities of the Church in Germany has consistently proven invaluable, is reporting that Archbishop Luis Ladaria sent a letter to Cardinal Reinhard Marx informing him that Francis does not want the German Bishops Conference to publish their controversial handout for allowing Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion under certain conditions.
According to Dr. Hickson, the key portion of the letter, which Archbishop Ladaria indicated is offered “with explicit approval of the pope,” states:
Our conversation on 3 May 2018 made it clear that the text of the [German pastoral] handout raises a set of questions which are of eminent importance. The Holy Father therefore has come to the conclusion that this document is not ripe for publication.
Readers may recall that the above referenced meeting is the one 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.”
Following the meeting, the Vatican News Service issued a statement, saying:
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.
Apparently, the Conference has thus far been unable to find unanimity.
Is anyone surprised?
If so, they shouldn’t be – if for no other reason than the fact that it has been only one month since the bishops were given the task of reaching consensus, and thirty days in Church time is like five-and-a-half minutes for you and me.
Bottom line: Francis didn’t really expect the bishops to arrive at unanimity, ever – not even in a month of Sundays.
Look, I really don’t like the I told you so game, but…
Following the May 3rd meeting, I said that the request for the bishops to seek a unanimous result was ultimately meaningless; i.e., it was never anything more than a red herring. Everyone with a pulse already knows very well that Francis desires intercommunion with Protestants; not just in Germany, but everywhere.
As I wrote at the time:
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.
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.
Well, my friends, those wheels are turning right before our very eyes, and, to be very honest, sooner than I ever imagined.
As reported by Dr. Hickson, Archbishop Ladaria gave the following reasons as to why Francis has decided against publication of the handout:
– The matter addressed therein “touches upon the faith of the Church and is relevant for the Universal Church.”
– It also “has an effect upon the ecumenical relationships with other churches which cannot be underestimated.”
– It also pertains to the “law of the Church,” about which exists “in some parts of the Church, open questions.”
On this latter point, Archbishop Ladaria indicated that several dicasteries have thus been given “the task to clarify soon these questions on the level of the Universal Church.”
Seriously, folks, does anyone really believe that the desired outcome is even remotely in question here? (HINT: Think Synods on the family, Amoris Laetitia, Buenos Aires guidelines, AAS…)
In reaction to news of Ladaria’s letter, the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net is suggesting that this marks the second time Rome has ruled against the German intercommunion handout.
Not exactly.
Ladaria’s letter specifically states that the handout “is not ripe for publication.” In this, Rome isn’t even hinting that their policy cannot happen; rather, they are simply saying not yet.
And why not?
In so many words, the letter tells us. It’s because the Head Heretic won’t be satisfied unless and until the intercommunion cancer is allowed to infect the entire Body.
Don’t be fooled: It takes just a handful of sentences on CDF letterhead to rule against the German proposal.
A well-publicized meeting in Rome with various Curial heads, and a follow-up letter saying that the “pope” (if you will allow) has charged several dicasteries with “the task to clarify soon these questions on the level of the Universal Church” can only mean one thing:
Unless God should intervene beforehand, intercommunion with Protestants is officially coming to your diocese, and what’s more, there’s good reason to believe that it may be coming soon.
In my previous post on this topic, I said that Bergoglio happens to be diabolically subtle enough to play the long game; that is, to bide his time until he believes that the moment is at hand to unveil the universal norm he desires.
Forget about the long game; as things stand today, all indications are that he is rather anxious to get this particular show on the road.
Seeing Jorge referred to as “pope” instead of Pope (no quotations) does my heart good. It’s catching on, which is a promising sign.
I prefer the “Borg” because he has plenty of mindless followers willing to swallow all of the fake news propaganda coming from the Vatican Communication appointees like Jimmy Martin.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/06/pope-blocks-german-guidelines-allowing.html?m=1#more
Since when is Any document of VII dogmatic?
The Second Vatican Council ushered in the V2 “church” as just another Protestant sect. Eucharistic Ministers and Communion in the hand was the “Icing on the Cake”. “Pope” francis the fake is putting the cherry on top. Mission accomplished.
They always were and the false dichotomy of a pastoral v. dogmatic was the spoonful of poison that makes the medicine go down:
15 official documents of V2: 3 have the title “Constitution.” 2 of them are entitled “Dogmatic Constitution,” one on the Church (Lumen Gentium) and one on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum). There 3 “declarations”: one on Christian education (Gravissimum Educationis), one on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate), and one on religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae). In addition, there were 8 “decrees” on: (1) the mission activity of the Church, (2) the ministry and life of priests, (3) the apostolate of the laity, (4) the training of priests, (5) the renewal of religious life, (6) the pastoral office of bishop, (7) ecumenism, and (8) the Catholic churches of the Eastern Rite.
Nothing to see here ALL PASTORAL. And while we were “pastoraling” along the road to Hell, we also conjured up a new and improved Doppelgänger Church PRO OMNES!
And this is why I feel like “conservative” and “traditional” Catholics played just as a big a role in this scam as modernists. If VII was just pastoral than why did every Catholic Mass change and why is every Parish teaching something new and why is there a new catechism and why are the some of the documents labeled, “dogmatic?” Answer, “That’s ignorant, you’re ignorant.”
We all have the power to change this mess and it is in our pockets and pocketbooks.
The Rosary and our $$$. Take your rosaries out and pray them and keep you donations in your pockets.
Before your combox is flooded with “verbal skirmishes,” let me say I certainly appreciate your insights into Bergoglio and his minions.
Thank you, Louie.
Melanie, as you have identified previously, they played the role of passive bystanders at the home invasion. Tired of “combat”, spiritual or otherwise, after two world wars, they succumbed to Calvinistic double predestination heresy by desiring only to leave the fight against the wolves within the sheepfold all up to supernatural intervention. Malformed Thomists (see influence of Jacques Maritain on Pius XI & Pius XII) are often closer to Calvin than St. Thomas. They were unwilling to do their virile and courageous “share.” As Pope Leo XIII explained in SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE: “Christians are, moreover, born for COMBAT, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.” Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness HE WOULD ASSIGN TO US A SHARE IN OBTAINING AND APPLYING the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.”
This V2 moment captures it perfectly:
“Whenever I think about the Council, I said, I always have one image in my mind: an aging Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, now blind, about age 80, limping, the head of the Holy Office and so the chief doctrinal officer of the Church, born in Trastevere to parents who had many children, so a Roman from Rome, from the people of Rome, takes the microphone to speak to the 2,000 assembled bishops.
And, as he speaks, pleading for the bishops to consider the texts the curia has spent three years preparing, suddenly his microphone was shut off. He kept speaking, but no one could hear a word. Then, puzzled and flustered, he stopped speaking, in confusion. And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer…
“Yes,” Gherardini said. “And it was only the third day.”
“What?” I said.
“Ottaviani’s microphone was turned off on the third day of the Council.”
“On the third day?” I said. “I didn’t know that. I thought it was later, in November, after the progressive group became more organized…”
“No, it was the third day, October 13, 1962. The Council began on October 11.”
“Do you know who turned off the microphone?”
“Yes,” he said. “It was Cardinal Lienart of Lille, France.”
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/controlling-mic-at-vatican-ii.html
P.S. From Wikipedia “Cardinal Lienart”.
By coincidence, one of the first priests Lienart ordained, on September 21, 1929 was a certain Marcel Lefebvre.
Thank you for once again reading the tea leaves Louie, I’m sure you are correct.
Anything Bergolio can do to destroy Catholicism, he will do.
The Bishops and Cardinals will be silent. They haven’t heard or seen a heresy from the man they couldn’t get used to, if they resisted them at all.
As for us, it hardly matters anymore. We know where we are, and he doesn’t disturb us. We’re over him.
When we pray for the Church in the Latin Rite, the Te Igitur I believe it is called, we pray a prayer for the Church, that God will “deign to give her peace and protection, to unite and guard her the world over”, together with the pope and bishops, and “all true believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic faith”.
God is in control of his church or he is not. We are waiting on Him. While we know Cardinals and bishops could do something about the apostasy and the destruction, we are no longer holding our breath. After denial and anger, comes acceptance.
Except the correct translation for “una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco et Antistite nostro (name of local Bishop) is “‘In union with’ or ‘united with’ or ‘one with’ your servant our Pope Francis and our Bishop …)”
This means the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be offered in union with a heretic if not apostate “Pope” and the local, possibly also heretic/apostate, bishop.
The name of one, perhaps two, public heretics are mentioned in the Canon of the Mass. Many, even without knowing the finer details of the “una cum” debate, are very troubled at this part of the Mass, but you seem blissfully unaware.
See below my reply to you Evangeline, sorry it didn’t go in the right place.
I don’t mean to trouble you, but the translation in many missals which suggests that we are simply praying for “Pope” Francis, is not correct, and I think this (major issue) is something each one of us has to pray about.
Why would it be an issue if the Vatican II church had intercommunion with Protestants? It is also Protestant.
This was the goal all along, no?
Hi Melanie! I was listening to a tape of Fr. Hesse and he actually addressed this topic. He stated that a Dogmatic Constitution does not mean it’s a dogma. It only means it is a constitution teaching. a Dogmatic Constitution would have to have a solemn pronouncement to be a truly Dogmatic. Meaning that it would have to state something to the effect that whosoever says that this is not so is is anathema. Fr. Hesse also says that that is why vii wasn’t a real council as it never pronounced anything as Dogma according to the definition of how something is to be defined as true dogma. He said that the Paul VI did say that vii is dogmatic only when it states that it is dogmatic but no where in the document is anything actually stated as being dogmatically defined. Fr. Hesse said this is one example of how the Holy Spirit truly protects the Church from heresy. None of the heresies of vii are actually defined dogmatically in that if you don’t believe it, you are anathema.
Thank you Linda. I have listened to and assumed these types of statements from Father Hesse were correct. Ah yes, ofcourse dogmatic doesn’t mean dogmatic, phew. I am now looking at an entirely new religion headed by the Vicar of Satan himself and I wonder if Father Hesse knew what the heck he was talking about. That’s all.
Another way the Holy Ghost can protect the Church from teaching heresy is by having those who are going to teach heresy lose their office prior to actually teaching the heresy. Therefore it wasnt the Catholic Church that promulgated V2 but a false church of satan. One problem with linda’s theory is that it still permits the Church to teach error even if it is t dogmatic. The status of V2 is not important. The only question one needs to consider is “Is Vatican II Catholic or not?” If it is Catholic than we need to stop all this trad crap and get on board with the new church. If it is not Catholic then it could not have come from a Catholic Council or a Catholic Pope. Its so simple that those who deny this truth must be extremely stubborn, extremely ignorant, or of ill will.
Seriously TomA, so true. Can you imagine if for 1,958 years Popes were just teaching whatever the heck they wanted, completely regardless of whether it was true or heresy? Oh yeah bro, that wasn’t dogmatic. How could any sane person believe that?
Hi Melanie again! I agree with you. Fr. Hesse is probably rolling in his grave. I just listened to another tape yesterday by him he was talking about the Papacy. He said it is not a sacrament to elect a pope and there is no divine protection in this process as the rules can be changed by any pope. He said it is an act of administration and doesn’t come under the protection of the Holy Spirit. We are to be united to the Chair of Peter, the office, not necessarily the person. And again he stated that for a pope to be a formal heretic, he has to explicitly state a heresy as dogma. All the most recent popes have stated heresy in every way possible except officially dogmatically (perhaps with the exception of the current resident?) as they always sneak it in the back door or “in a footnote” and never actually define it. I don’t know what is the right way to think about this man in the Chair of Peter as that argument will probably go on until Christ returns, but I am more in line with agreeing with Fr. Hesse as he was as learned about these issues as anyone and he makes the most sense to me. Not speaking for anyone else, only myself. God Bless!
Linda, What does that even mean? Not the person? So what does uniting yourself to an office mean? I will be extremely impressed and surprised if you can tell me that. When a supposed authority makes a nonsense claim, he loses credibility. If he wants to clarify, elaborate or adjust that’s good but no amount of certifications will make nonsense more authoritative. And if a Priest made a claim that I thought sounded like nonsense, I’d look over the writings of the Popes, the Saints and Doctors of the Church. If you’ve done this and concluded that he’s in agreement w/perennial Church teaching; I would like to take a look at these sources if you could direct me to them. Also, could you direct me to a list of the Church dogmas?
Hi Melanie! You would have to listen to his talks. I believe it means aligning your self with the authority of the Chair or office and the Tradition of the Church. I am not very learned in these things but am still trying to understand. I cannot find the exact tape I listened to where he made that statement (even though I just heard it yesterday.) I understand this because that’s what Archbishop Lefebvre did. He never denied the authority of the Pope or that the pope was the pope even though many heresies were being spoken. Fr. Hesse does constantly quote previous popes, their writings and many official church teachings in his talks. I will keep looking for the one I heard yesterday. In the meantime a good one to listen to is Fr. Hesse on the Papacy and the Crisis in the Church.
It’s interesting re: Fr Hesse….i never thought he made sense….and that was before I took the sedevacantist position.
I stopped watching old “Fr” Hesse videos when he said he “could feel his priesthood.” With all the legitimate concerns about Novus Ordo sacraments, he called into question all his judgments when he ignored volumes of traditional Catholic Sacramental Theology, brushed aside all those objections and pronounced NO sacraments valid because he had some “sixth sense” like spiderman.
TomA: That’s right! I remember that now! Yes, he was ordained in the New Rite by a bishop consecrated in the Old Rite (or was it the other way around?)
Yes you are all too kind. Thank you for all of your sarcasm and insulting condescending responses. I want to be just like you. Thank you for clarifying everything for me and being very Christian as to explain things in a way that I can really understand what the Truth is. I am glad you all have it all figured out and can stand in judgment on everyone else who doesn’t. Congratulations and God Bless you all. You truly give credence to every person who ever felt or said that traditionalists are self-righteous, snobby, and cold. I think I’ve learned all I can from this comment section as junkyard dog attacks and schoolyard fights are the norm. And you can save yourselves the trouble of posting your sarcastic indignation towards me after this comment as I won’t be visiting here again.