In follow-up to yesterday’s post, I have written an extensive, chronological review of Amoris Laetitia (AL), but rather than publishing the entire 5,000 word treatment at once, I will break it into two parts.
Even though I know very well that I risk making “part one” appear all but academic, I will begin by picking up the discussion in the final chapter; by far, the most devastating portion of the document.
So, why begin at the end? Because souls are at stake, and I dare not waste another moment before sounding the alarm.
Chapter 8 – Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness
Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal [of Christian marriage], while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way. The Synod Fathers stated that the Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage …
The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that … they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”. (AL 292,293)
Not content to speak of “new unions” as if they are anything less than adultery, here we find a casual reference to “simple cohabitation” wherein there is no sense given whatsoever that it is a mortal sin. There is a reason for this, but we will address it momentarily.
Rather, pastors are encouraged in such cases:
…to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth. (ibid.)
This is like telling the parents of a kid who is dealing crack to focus on the entrepreneurial skills the little degenerate is developing.
In the next paragraph, which I quote here in full, things go from bad to worse.
The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations. In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love. We know that there is a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church. Simply to live together is often a choice based on a general attitude opposed to anything institutional or definitive; it can also be done while awaiting more security in life (a steady job and steady income). In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning the family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into de facto unions. Whatever the case, all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly. That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel. (AL 294)
It is shameful enough that Francis makes excuses for mortal sin, but to suggest that pastors do well to find evidence of “God’s love” reflected in these situations is simply beyond the pale. What’s more, to even suggest that Jesus in any way did this with the Samaritan woman is nothing short of blasphemy!
And yet, there is more to come…
Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. (AL 295)
Here, Francis presumes to declare that God’s law, for some, represents an unattainable “ideal” and an impossible demand – more blasphemy still!
He is quite literally taking Our Lord’s admonition against the Pharisees and turning it against Him:
“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them … you shut the kingdom of heaven against men” (cf Mt 23:4,13).
Let’s not beat around the bush, Amoris Laetitia does not represent the life-giving words of Christ speaking through His Vicar; rather, it contains the seductive lies of the Adversary that lead to eternal death.
From here, Francis launches into full blown moral relativism with respect to “the discernment of irregular situations.”
There is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition”. (AL 296)
Nonsense! Judgments as to the objective morality of a given activity is not contingent upon “the complexity of various situations.”
It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. (AL 297)
No one can be condemned for ever? Has Francis never heard of Hell?
As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit. (AL 297)
Apparently, as will be made clear, reminding such persons of the consequences of mortal sin isn’t among the ways that Francis believes the Church should “help them understand” the urgency of reaching the “fullness of God’s plan.”
He goes on:
The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. (AL 298)
Notice the casual reference to a “new union.” This, along with words like “remarried” and “broken marriages” is just one of more than a dozen such expressions that undermine Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of adultery and fornication.
In most of the cases presumably addressed in this document, the Church has a more accurate name for such relationships – adultery.
According to Francis, however, “mortal sin” is simply a “pigeonhole” and a “rigid classification.”
One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. (ibid.)
No, your eyes don’t deceive you: Francis actually uses the words “proven fidelity” and “Christian commitment” to describe adultery.
Worse still, he justifies persisting in this mortal sin by claiming that it may actually help the participants avoid other sins. In other words, they’re going have at it one way or another, it may as well be at home.
The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. (ibid.)
De facto annulment based upon one’s own opinion. Nice, eh? Either way, it’s for the children!
Throughout the document, there are numerous calls for careful, pastoral discernment of “new unions” and “irregular situations.”
It is exceedingly clear that what Francis really intends is for pastors to enter into dialogue with fornicators, adulterers and, let’s not be naïve, homo-deviants as well – not in order to aid them in seeking a remedy to the situation, renouncing their sin, and avoiding Hell – but rather so that all concerned can craft a list of excuses as to why it simply isn’t possible to return to a state of grace.
And guess what? Whatever excuses they can come up with are entirely valid!
How so? Because, as we noted earlier, the demands of the Divine Law are just too great. They represent an “ideal” that, for many, is simply unattainable.
Clearly, as Francis sees things, God is not just! And after all, isn’t that what the Year of Mercy is all about?
All of this said, the reality is that very little if any “dialogue” and “pastoral discernment” will ever take place among pastors and those in “irregular situations;” it will simply be assumed that the excuses exist, and what’s more, they suffice.
In his benevolence, Francis even kick starts the process by supplying his own list of ready-made excuses!
Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce…
In other words, bed hopping.
We know that no “easy recipes” exist. 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” (Gaudium et Spes, 51). (ibid.)
Incidentally, even this reference to the Council, pathetic in its own right, is misappropriated as it was addressing those who are validly married.
At last we are drawing near to the heart of Amoris Laetitia…
I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities… (AL 299)
Keep in mind who we’re discussing here – those with unconfessed mortal sins, of whom Francis states:
Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members… (ibid.)
In this, he is half-correct. Such persons are not excommunicated, but neither are they “living members” of the Church. That’s the very definition of mortal sin.
The excuse-making continues with the claim that all cases are different:
This Exhortation could [not] be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. (AL 300)
The intent? All cases are excusable if only they are “discerned” carefully enough!
Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance … A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone. (ibid.)
Don’t let the word “repentance” fool you. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, this does not refer to Confession with the firm purpose of amendment necessary for absolution; rather, it’s about pseudo-contrition and comforting oneself with a false sense of God’s “mercy.”
And now, my friends, we come to the very centerpiece of Amoris Laetitia – a cancer capable of spreading through every member of the Body of Christ and not simply those presently in “irregular situations,” thereby ushering souls to eternal death if the disease is not properly and quickly excised along with the heretic-in-white who authored the poisonous text.
The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. (AL 301)
This is nothing less gravely serious than an attempt to abrogate mortal sin! And it is a bold attempt, at that.
Notice that Francis even goes so far as to eliminate the excuse of ignorance in order to assert that even those who engage in mortal sin with full knowledge do not lose sanctifying grace!
This is heresy! The question we might ask, however, is whether it is material, or truly formal?
While I am not willing to take it upon myself to make such a judgment, I find the words that have been chosen by Francis noteworthy in the extreme:
…it can no longer simply be said…
In other words, Francis seems to be saying:
I know very well what the Church has consistently, clearly and for millennia professed in this matter, I, however, reject that teaching…
This is the very definition of formal heresy.
Francis goes about trying to justify his heresy by citing factors that may limit one’s culpability in sin.
Be not fooled! While the Church speaks in the name of Christ as she judges objective sin, she does not render subjective judgement on the matter of culpability. That is for Him to do.
Once again, it is helpful to recall the words of Pope St. Pius X:
We leave out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge. (cf Pascendi 3)
Pay close attention to the following from the Council of Trent, and tell me if it does not address Francis and Amoris Laetitia directly:
In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ. (Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV)
It is as though the Fathers of Trent have Francis and his poisonous screed on trial as they write! Undaunted, however, he adds to his sin by twisting the very Word of God:
In every situation, when dealing with those who have difficulties in living God’s law to the full, the invitation to pursue the via caritatis must be clearly heard. Fraternal charity is the first law of Christians (cf. Jn 15:12; Gal 5:14). Let us not forget the reassuring words of Scripture: “Maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8); “Atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged” (Dan 4:24); “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sins” (Sir 3:30). (AL 306)
Apparently, Francis is not the first heretic to ever make such a claim. Once again, Trent speaks directly to his offense:
If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or – which is more intolerable still – mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XXV)
If this isn’t instructive enough, consider:
If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XXVII)
If by some chance your breath has yet to be taken away by the condemnable audacity of this man, Francis actually even goes so far as to assert that God Himself asks the children for whom He gave His only begotten Son that we may live to persist in mortal sin:
It [conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. (AL 303)
My friends, we are living through an historical moment, the likes of which the Church has never endured. Sure, we have had “bad popes” in the past, but I defy anyone to point to a claimant to the Chair of Peter that was a blasphemous heretic such as he who authored Amoris Laetitia.
Let him be anathema!
(March 8, 2016) Pope Francis: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.”
The document is deadly, puffed up with the leaven of delusion and vanity. Any cardinal or bishop that does not explicitly rebuke or disown it is complicit and/or a coward and not worthy of the name of pastor.
To my mind the following is of profound historical and theological significance
“natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”
Natural law means that God created nature therefore to act in ways that are contrary to nature is to violate the will or intention of God. Thus for example, the whole of the human sexual apparatus (anatomical, physiological and psychological ) is by Nature (God’s intention) for purposes of procreation. Thus, to engage in any sexual activity that preclude procreation is to act against the will of God, ego a sin.
My understanding is that the whole of Catholic moral teachings i.e. Cannon Law are based on Natural Law Theology
The above quote from the International Theological Commission substitutes “a priori rule” for ‘will of God’. “a priori” is a secular philosophic concept having to due with unproved assumptions (premises) of logical deduction.
In Short, to my mind, with the above the Pope has rejected de facto Cannon Law moral teaching. The theological and moral implication are obviously profound.
But, in terms of the 2,000-year history of the Church and the role it has played in Western Civilization, the rejection of Cannon Law is even more profound. We have seen a 2,000-year old institution change before our very eyes. Historians of Western culture in the future will surely look back to 4/15/16 as a millstone in the history of that culture.
Also, it is time for traditional Catholics to give it up. The Church is gone. It will not devolve back to tradition. It is time declare Schism and begin a new. That’s why God created SSPX.
“…she told me that the Devil is engaging in a battle with the Virgin, a decisive battle. It is a final battle where one party will be victorious and the other will suffer defeat. So, from now on, we are either with God or we are with the devil; there is no middle ground.” Sr. Lucia, 1957
This means that if anyone tries to take the middle ground he will be on the devil’s side.
Excellent analysis. Indeed Francis is intending to eliminate sin so that anything goes. Notice how anything goes because of the primacy of conscience under various circumstances, that is situation ethics. The saddest part is how so few notice. The cover is indeed mercy in a perverted way such that true repentance is never needed. This document is full of “whoppers.”
Brilliant, Louie, Brilliant, especially utilising The Council Of Trent to analyze the actions of PF I.
Papa Bergoglio is one who does NOT think with a Catholic Mind, but with Indifference, who tends toward Protestantism.
By What He has done with Amoris Laetitia, via the “Magisterium Nota Pied”(Footnote Magisterium), Bergoglio has declared War on Christ & His Church, using Stealth via Footnotes, allowing an Opening to Public Adulterers(Possibly Coupled Homosexuals), to reception of The Sacraments of Penance & Holy Communion, while the Grave Sins Remain.
It is as if Bergoglio believes what Luther believed. In short, we are talking about an Heretical Pope, in Schism with the Magisterium, in fact with all of The Church by this Apostolic Exhortation. One would be accurate to say that Bergoglio is an Apostate, for no longer believing what The Christ by way of His Church, taught, by Bergoglio exercising as Magisterium, The Thoughts of Pope Bergoglio.
“Let him be Anathema.”
And WOE to That Group of Conspirators in The St. Gallen Group of Princes of The Church, for What You Did, is Why we are in this Mess.
I never really imagined that I would live to see this day. It’s beyond devastating that these heresies are being spewed forth from the Vicar Of Christ himself. One commenter mentioned that the Traditional AKA Catholics need to accept that for all intents and purposes the Novus Ordo Church is gone…..that is the truth without a doubt and for those who don’t have the great blessing of a TLM available this is very heartbreaking. Our Lady will assist us in this nightmare ..She has given Her Word and we must follow Her requests for rosary, reparations on First Saturday’s ect…as Louie has said SOULS are at stake here …Profound gratitude to Louie and all the wonderful traditional blog writers for wading through this muck and mire for us. Hopefully many Novus Ordo priests will benefit from this expose ….wishful thinking perhaps but I’m praying for the enlightenment of grace for them to see how terribly harmful this NO church is.
I need to insert what needs to be said in regards to the quote which is, as you say Louie, addressed in Gaudium et Spes back then as a hypothetical situation for those who are in legitimate marriages in the Catholic Church and are weary of having more children and are considering contraception. This is exactly how these hijackers are using quotes to mislead and confuse the faithful into stirring up emotions for a perceived dilema. I wish to rewrite how this paragraph that you quote from Gaudium et Spes that says “We know that no “easy recipes exist .. ” should actually read for clarity’s sake for the adulterers that it is actually refering to.
We know that no “easy recipe” exists. In such situations, many ADULTERERS, knowing and accepting the possibility of living as “brother and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy (i.e sex) are lacking (meaning if we can’t have our adulterous sex), ” it often happens that faithfulness to OUR ADULTERY is endangered and that our BASTARD children will suffer”.
As you say the word adultery is considered a four letter word now just as ‘bastard’ has been wiped off the face of the earth in regards to the children of these bastard unions. I realise that perhaps some might even cringe at the word bastard for these innocent children but I am sorry to have to say this but this is where it all began, with the trying to hold us hostage because of their fake and phony protection of trying to make it look as if they do not want to harm any further the children from these adulterous unions. Unfortunately these bastard children will most likely embrace that adultery is not a sin and that children born out of wedlock are indeed not bastards.
No one wants to be a bastard by choice but it is better to know that you are a bastard because your parents conceived you in adultery than to beleive that you are no longer considered a bastard because you have been taught not only by your parents example of their adulterous life that adultery is not really a sin when one has children and is faithful to the adulterous situation but also by the example of a man who presently sits in the Chair of Peter and who endorsed the this apostolic exhortation on the “Joy of Sex”.
There is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition”. (AL 296)
If ONLY John the Baptist had such clarity. I guess he lost his head for no reason. Hm.
Agree – any priest or bishop who does not condemn this heresy this Sunday at their homily is complicit in the sin of heresy by their silence.
Cortez, this also applies to St. Thomas More–another foolish Saint!
“May St. Michael the Archangel inspire us with his zeal for the glory of God and with his strength to fight demons.
May St. Pius X share with us a part of his wisdom, of his learning, and his sanctity; to discern the true from the false and the good from the evil in these times of confusion and lies.”
Its really painful to think of the great magisterial writing of Pope St. Pius X set next to this modernist drivel. This is the perfect example of what he warned about in Pascendi, the poison pellets hidden within the apparently othodox. God save us all from this dreadful nuchurch.
“People who don’t really understand our position and our attitude towards Vatican II, they like to say, and to remind us constantly, that “Where the Pope is, there is the Church;” therefore, to oppose the Pope is to separate yourself from the Church. But isn’t it better to say, with a more profound truth, “Where Mary is, there is the Church.”
Because it is through Mary that the Apostles were made founders of the Church. And Mary cannot err, Mary is infallible. Mary cannot sin, she is immaculate, conceived without sin. She is holy, perfect and she is the light of truth, and that is what she communicated to the Apostles.
Therefore, as far as the Apostles and St. Peter continued to be united to Mary in the Spirit of Truth, in the Spirit of Holiness, yes, oh, yes, we are with the Popes, we are with the Church because She continues her holy work.
But, if, by some incredible circumstances, the successor of Peter decided no longer to follow Mary, no longer to preach the Spirit of Truth and Holiness. What would we do? Whom would we turn to? Quite simply, we would stay with Mary. We would surround her as the apostles did on Pentecost Sunday. And we would remain with her in the Spirit of Truth and Holiness…
…There is a strong opposition towards Mary, since Mary isn’t ecumenical. The Blessed Virgin Mary only recognizes Jesus Christ and the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of Truth and of Holiness. The spirit which founded the Church, which is the Spirit of the Church itself…
…Let us pray to Our Blessed Mother that we will remain faithful, that we will always remain faithful to her. It is through her protection and through devotion to her that we will keep the faith and remain part of the Catholic Church. Yes, she is the Mother of the Catholic Church, she is not the mother of a church which ‘brings together all religions’…
…We must be clear headed, strong and we must not hesitate, we want to remain with the Blessed Virgin Mary. We want to be with the Apostles at Pentecost and with the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Spirit of Truth and Holiness, which is the Spirit of the Church and we do not want that to change. It doesn’t matter which authorities want to separate us from that Spirit, we will refuse because we want to remain Catholic we do not want to become liberals, modernists or protestant..
…Father Garrigou-Lagrange calls her “Our Lady of Horror.” What does he mean by that? The Blessed Virgin Mary has a horror of error and a horror of sin, this horror is part of her nature. She cannot accept sin or error, because error is sin, it is the devil’s work and we all know well that Our Blessed Lady was born to trample on the head of the serpent, to bring to naught Satan and all his works.
Let us therefore unite ourselves to her and remain always united to her. Thus she will preserve us from sin and all errors and she will keep us in the spirit of truth and holiness…” Archbishop Lefebvre
My2cents, you are correct. Thomas Moore and friends were also beheaded for no reason based on this evil logic of today. All these, so called men of the Church, who fall silent today, probably are blind to their hypocrisy and admire these saints for their courage to stand for Our Lord’s Truth. We live when we live, yet they don’t see their chance to be martyrs for the Truth. How very sad and weak. Why won’t anyone besides SSPX do anything? What is wrong with everybody? Tomorrow I will enter the Twilight Zone once again at the NO church to receive Our Lord, who resides there. I will look around and search for some sign of knowledge of life of Truth in anyone’s eyes.
We all received, in our diocese here in Baltimore, an email shout out from Bishop Lori this past Friday on the heels of this horror. Of course it’s the best thing going in his eyes. Nothing but praise. I guess for the majority of Catholics around here that will be all they ever hear regarding this horror. Nothing will wake anyone up. That’s the scariest part of all. I imagine that perhaps something very terrible is bound to happen.
Our Lady is Our only hope.
Our Lady of Good Success…pray for us!
Im sorry, but if this nut-case deviant (bergoglio) isnt a true blue formal heretic then I dont know if an actual formal heretic can even exist. Popes cant be tried for heresy as they have no earthly peers….Im really not sure why this fallacious idea keeps being suggested.
Ah, the footnotes.
Relying on laziness or trusting naivety, satan can sneak him in some real damage, as most folks do tend to ignore the footnotes.
But don’t think this is new.
The Modernists with their precious New American Bible laced many a heresy in those filthy little footnotes, ranging from the doubting of the absolute miracle of the manna from heaven to the acknowledgement of lesser gods [sic].
Satan never sleeps.
Thank you, Louie, for the Catholic translation of the modernist document.
Too bad we need you so much.
But we do.
It is hard to believe that we live in these times, Theresa.
May Our Lady protect us and grant us final perseverance.
John the Baptist! —– What WAS he thinking?!
It is maddening!
But a darn good punishment for our sins! This is torture.
Amoris Laetitia and Laudato “save-the-whales” SI should join the “Divine mercy” devotion in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
Servant of Our Lady—-thank you for sending the link of Our Lady in tears. It is profoundly touching and sums up the pain in all who love Her Son and His Church. Someone should send this to Bergoglio with the heading: “Our Lady has just read Amoris Laetitia. Have you no shame????”
Thank you dear Servant of Our Lady for the link….I pray seven Hail Marys each morning to honor Our Lady sorrowing and the image I envision is of Our Lady of LaSalette.
Really? So Christ was LYING when he said that wickedness would be punished in the ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE!! And Christ tells us this! “But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him. ” Are you saying Christ never knew what he was talking about? Or are you an Illuminati insider? Paid to put favorable comments about someone that is SO OBVIOUSLY the DESTROYER God said he would send in the END times? PEOPLE, We were warned and told of signs so we would know what to look for. We were warned so we would not follow ANYONE blindly into hell!! INCLUDING THIS FREEMASON POPE!!! IT IS NOT AGAINST GOD TO QUESTION A POPE THAT CALLS CHRIST’S CRUCIFIXION A FAILURE, AND STARTS TURNING EVERYTHING OUR RELIGION HAS HELD SACRED FROM DAY 1 ON IT’S HEAD!!! Do not be foolish enough to believe that sinning will lead you ANYWHERE but to hell!! REGARDLESS of what this WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING tells us!!! FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, Let Pope Francis contemplate his fall into the Lake of fire with his MASTER, whom is NOT our God, but the god of the Freemasons!! DO THE RESEARCH!! DON’T BE SHEEP WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR ETERNAL LIFE!! The information is out there, you only need search for it! May Lord Jesus Bless you ALL with Discernment and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary keep you all safe with Her most Holy Mantle. God loves us ALL!! His love is unconditional, just like a parents, but ETERNAL life is CONDITIONAL!!!
Please forgive me I should have read the above post better. I’ve just realised you were repeating Pope Francis’ words. Not agreeing with them
Litany for the Church in Our Time (very appropriate!)
No worries. If I could give a thumbs up to your post, I would in a heartbeat. Thank you for your sobering and true words. What you pointed out is True Charity not this false mercy, false charity that is spewed from the Vatican-II pulpits and the higher echelons of the NovusOrdo clergy.
God be with you.
The very definition of a formal heretic is a public heretical who has persisted in his errors *despite formal warnings from the Church*. It is the Church that decides.
You should read what the Church’s doctors & theologians have written regarding papal heresy because it isn’t what you imply: There is a process, and it involves the pontiff *judging himself* with his pertinacity.
We can only judge the objective. Francis clearly makes materially heretical statements, time & again. But, for all we know, he could be incredibly stupid – or even insane.
So, we do what Catholics have always done in such situations (though this is the worst case yet, beyond doubt), and what canon law prescribes: Call him on his errors and refuse to follow his erroneous teaching. We know what that is by comparing his (non-binding, non-infallible) statements against actual, binding Church doctrine.
We haven’t seen anything yet. Wait for October 31st 2016 in Sweden.
Francis and company will fly to Sweden to celebrate the commemoration of the “Holy Reformation” with the Lutherans.
As previous VaticanII popes, he already went to a synagogue, mosque, etc, now he will legitimize the Reformation in a join “Catholic-Lutheran” celebration.
The new heretical joint book of common prayer has been out for quite some time. It will be read. “From conflict to…Communion”.
You are welcome, dear Theresa.
Our Lady of LaSalette is a beautiful image to think of while meditating on Our Holy Mother’s seven sorrows. Thank you for recommending it. I had not so lovely a “visual” as this image for this meditation. I had only pictured Our Mother holding (this image of) Her Son:
Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent is taken to agree.
Yes, very appropriate.
And great reminder of the power (and the individual charism) of each saint mentioned in the litany .
Thanks for posting it.
Yes. The thrice-condemned “divine mercy devotion” was originally on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, was it not?
Thank you for the proper title —- “Index Librorum Prohibitorum.”
Dear Mr. V. Kudos for writing so boldly and clearly even though a gentleman linked to below thinks you and your ilk completely miss the truth that Franciscus its just continuing in the line of Pope Saint John Paul II.
It can be said about Our Pope and Our Cross that his exhortations and Encyclicals (they avoid brevity and specificity) reveal what is in the hearts and souls of catholics.