The Mass readings for the Novus Ordo last Sunday contained, in part, the following:
First Reading:
If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live… No one does He command to act unjustly, to none does He give license to sin. (Sirach 15)
Psalm:
Blessed are they who follow the law of the Lord! (Psalm 119)
Gospel:
Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven …
It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife – unless the marriage is unlawful (in the Italian, illegittima, illegitimate) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5)
As is customary, the Angelus address that day featured a reflection on these very same Mass readings; Scripture passages that serve as a profoundly clear indictment of Amoris Laetitia, and more importantly, Francis, its author.
Consider:
- Whereas Our Blessed Lord plainly says that so-called second marriages constitute the mortal sin of adultery; Francis says that it can no longer simply be said that those who persist in such ‘irregular situations’ are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.
- Whereas Sacred Scripture says that following the law of the Lord is a blessing; Francis says that the objective demands of the law are too great from some to fully carry out. (cf AL 295)
- Whereas Sacred Scripture plainly condemns those who teach others to violate God’s law and to sin; Francis does exactly this while heaping praise on those who do likewise (e.g., his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires).
- Whereas Sacred Scripture states that God gives no one license to sin, Francis insists that God himself asks us to persist in adultery. (cf AL 303)
So, how did His Humbleness expound on these inconvenient Scripture readings in his Angelus address?
Another fulfillment is made to the marriage law. Adultery was considered a violation of the human right to property on the woman. Jesus, however, goes to the root of evil. As you come to murder through insults, offenses and insults, so it comes to adultery through ownership intentions with respect to a woman other than his wife. Adultery, such as theft, corruption and all other sins, they are first conceived in our hearts and, once accomplished in the heart the wrong choice, are implemented in concrete behavior. And Jesus says: who looks at a woman who is not his own with a spirit of possession is an adulterer in his heart, he has begun the road to adultery. We think little about this: the bad thoughts that go along this line.
Well there you have it folks: Adultery is like insults, ownership intentions, theft and corruption. This is how Jesus “goes to the root of evil” in fulfilling the divine law against adultery – the Gospel according to Jorge.
Imagine, here we have a “pope” (if you’ll pardon the expression) who is compelled by the sheer force of his pertinacity to slither out from under the purifying light of Truth and into the shadows of banal social-justice-speak when commenting upon God’s word in Sacred Scripture.
And yet, there are those who insist that in spite of multiple public pleas to remove the suspicion of heresy, most notably the dubia, we are duty bound to pretend that Jorge Bergoglio has not lost the faith (and thus the Office of Peter) until such time as he receives a “formal warning” and a “formal act of correction” (processes for which have never been definitively set forth by the sacred Magisterium) from other men of the Council (otherwise known as the “proper authorities”); with this, God willing, setting the stage for the “formal declaration” that, if ever it should come, is the only thing capable of informing us that Jorge is a formal heretic.
In other words, don’t believe your lyin’ eyes.
This is rather like telling a man caught in a thunderstorm that he cannot really know that it’s raining until the National Weather Service says so.
More difficult to swallow still is the idea that as long some ill-defined number of Catholics – sheep who have been left to starve by their shepherds for lo these past fifty-plus years – accept that the heretic Bergoglio is really the Vicar of Jesus Christ, well then by God, he must be the pope!
This is rather like telling that same man caught in a thunderstorm that it isn’t really raining so long as the majority of his neighbors (many of whom are trapped in windowless houses) sincerely believe that it’s sunny.
Oh well, to each his own, I suppose.
“Gospel:
Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven …” Can Louie or others help me to understand this Scripture? Did Our Lord mean that those who break “the least of these commandments” can still enter heaven but just be the least in heaven? Can one give an example what “the least of these commandments” is? stealing a penny from an old lady?
So I think he is saying that if you think of your wife as property through “ownership intentions” you are insulting her, which if you follow that line of thought in your heart, actual adultery, or perhaps murder will be the result.
So the root of adultery is this “spirit of possession”? The song “Freebird” by Lynyrd Skynyrd comes to mind.
Great questions, Daniel. I thought about this as well when reading these verses. Here’s my take:
.
Certainly by saying that such persons “will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” Our Lord does not mean to suggest that they will be in heaven; rather, it means that the blessed in heaven will look down upon those who teach others to sin as the least. Such a reading of this passage is in context with the rule of faith.
.
The Commandments do contain greater and lesser proscriptions; e.g., failure to honor one’s mother and father is a lesser sin than murder.
If and/or when a small number of “good” Cardinals should declare that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, and therefore not the Pope, and the 260 or so “bad” Cardinals say that he is not a heretic and still the Pope, who will judge which group is making the necessary declartion on behalf of the Church?
Do we wait for Salza and Siscoe, and A Catholic Thinker to tell us, in their dreaded “private judgement” whether or not the declaration is valid or not?
Will they make the judgement based upon the majority? On whether or not the “good” Cardinals are the real Catholic authority?
In any scenario, it comes down to an individual to determine when “the Church” has made the declaration or not.
Things may also play out according to that famous line:
For man proposes, but God disposes;
This proverb is a translation from “The Imitation of Christ” by the German-born Thomas à Kempis (c.1380-1471): “For the resolutions of the just depend rather on the grace of God than on their own wisdom; and in Him they always put their trust, whatever they take in hand. For man proposes, but God disposes; neither is the way of man in his own hands.”
Why does Louie V. consider Francis to be an antipope but not Benedict, John Paul, and Paul VI?
The Papal Subject,
What do you think about the SSPX allowing New Rite priests in?
After Mass at the SSPX, when you go downstairs for hot dogs and donuts, do you keep your mouth shut about sedevacantism?
Why don’t you go to the SSPX resistance instead, and/or the SSPV?
Why don’t you go Gerry Matatics and stay home on Sundays?
Others, feel free to answer the above questions as well.
If you choose the indult, you go to Hell –
(1) if SSPV is correct, you received doubtful sacraments; idolatry; accepted VII Counter-church
(2) if SSPX resistance is correct, you received doubtful/invalid sacraments; accepted VII Church; accepted Novus Ordo in principle
(3) if Matatics is correct, you went to doubtful/invalid & illicit Mass; you accepted VII Church; you accepted antipope by going to una cum Mass
(4) if Dimond Bros. are correct, you went to a heretic’s Mass; invalidly ordained priest; you accepted VII Church; you supported a pro-NFP establishment; you accepted an antipope
If you choose Dimond-sedevacantism, you go to Hell –
(1) if SSPV is correct, you were too dogmatic about there being no pope; you avoided sacraments you could have received; you didn’t accept baptism of desire
(2) if SSPX resistance is correct, you rejected a true pope, you avoided some sacraments
(3) if Michael Voris-Catholicism is correct, you skipped Mass, you rejected VII, you rejected true popes
(4) if Matatics is correct, you were heretical for not accepting the no jurisdiction position
If you choose Matatics-sedevacantism, you go to Hell –
(1) If SSPV is correct, you avoided sacraments & told others to do so; you may have skipped a Mass you could have gone to
(2) If SSPX resistance is correct, same as the above
(3) If Michael Voris-Catholicism is correct, you skipped Mass, you rejected VII, you rejected true popes
(4) If SSPX is correct, you taught heresy, you skipped Mass, avoided Confession
(5) If Dimond-sedevacantism is true, you were a radical schismatic for holding the no jurisdiction position
If you choose the SSPV, you go to Hell –
(1) If Indult is correct, you were a heretic for doubting the New Sacraments; you rejected a true pope
(2) If Michael Voris-Catholicism is correct, you rejected a true pope, rejected VII, doubted New Sacraments, weren’t in Communion with true Church
(3) If Dimond-sedevacantism is true, you were a heretic for not being dogmatic about sedevacantism; you supported a pro-NFP institution; you accepted baptism of desire; you had an issue with the Thuc Line
(4) If Matatics-sedevacantism is true, you went to an illicit Mass b/c the shepherds are “unauthorized”; maybe the NFP issue too
(5) If SSPX and/or SSPX resistance is correct, you rejected a true pope
If you choose the SSPX, you go to Hell –
(1) If Michael Voris-Catholicism is true, you were schismatic; your marriage was invalid; your confessions were invalid (until Francis during Year of Mercy)
(2) If Dimond-sedevacantism is correct, you were subjectively schismatic (accepting head of VII Church without accepting VII Church); you accepted antipope
(3) If SSPV is correct, you risked receiving invalid/doubtful sacraments b/c of SSPX allowing New Rite priests in
(4) If Matatics-sedevacantism is correct, you went to possibly valid, but certainly illicit Masses b/c the shepherds are “unauthorized,” they have no jurisdiction
(5) If SSPX resistance is correct, you compromised with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Church; you allowed New Rite priest into SSPX chapels
If you choose the SSPX resistance, you go to Hell –
(1) If Michael Voris-Catholicism is correct, you were schismatic; you rejected Vatican II
(2) If Indult is correct, you were schismatic
(3) If Matatics-sedevacantism is correct, you accepted antipope; you received sacraments from an unauthorized shepherd (they have no jurisdiction)
(4) If Dimond-sedevacantism is correct, you accepted an antipope; you were subjectively schismatic (recognizing head of Novus Ordo Church but refusing communion with Novus Ordo Church, not rejecting the head of the false church; believing one can be head of true & false church simultaneously)
One could make things worse by adding in Eastern “Orthodoxy” and Protestantism. Just one example –
If one chooses Catholicism in any form, you go to Hell –
(1) If Eastern “Orthodoxy” is true, you accepted the Filioque; you rejected the true church
(2) If Protestantism is true, you were a heretic
So, dear reader, how will one escape Hell?
I haven’t the foggiest idea anymore. What’s your advice.
I’m beginning to wonder, at times, what is the point of pushing for the formal correction, which as has been pointed out, is hardly even a “thing” in Catholicism, just some nebulous notion about correcting a runaway rogue pope, since Catholicism, in it’s supposed brilliance, apparently has no such check for rogues, and apparently, just lets them get away with anything, while waiting for them to die. This pope looks fresh as a daisy, as good as when he came in.
It seems a glitch in planning. Because we are in the age of social media. What some pope did in 1270 is no longer true for 2017 as far as communicating bad ideas.
Besides, we apparently also have tons of bad Cardinals who will only elect someone worse.
Boys and girls, I’m afraid to say what I’m thinking about those gates of Hell.
I’m personally willing to believe Benedict and John Paul are actually genuinely confused. As were many popes stretching back to the 17th Century when the scientific consensus overthrew the Church’s canonical ruling that heliocentrism was formal heresy, and in our more recent times adhering to the heresy of Darwinian evolution over 6-Day Creation.
Francis, however, I’m convinced is deliberate in his treachery. He knows what he’s doing when it comes to justifying adultery. This is why he deliberately dances around the dubia and many other things. This is his modus operandi from the get go. I would not be surprised if it turned out he is a Mason.
100th Anniversary of Fatima.
Rumors swirling of Francis calling for Vatican III.
Wouldn’t it be a treat if the Centenary of Fatima’s ends where it’s 3rd Secret was supposed to begin, with the calling of a council. What would’ve been clear in 1960 will once again be clear in 2017.
Intriguing how our Lady, knowing the disobedience of the Holy Father and clergy, allowed Sr. Lucia to make known that specific detail about 1960. Maybe after Francis calls a council, the 3rd Secret will somehow be revealed.
“he shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven; that is, according to St. Augustine he shall not be there at all; for none but the great in sanctity and virtue shall find admittance into heaven.”
Taken from The Douay-Rheims with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary compiled by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo HAYDOCK.
Then, there could be those who have committed this sin, sincerely repented, did penance and went to Heaven.
Confusion, confusion, confusion!…. Satan’s greatest weapon. Where do we go from here? Should we just wear Our Lady’s scapular and pray Her Rosary and walk away from everything else? I long for the days when a Catholic was a Catholic… was a Catholic…. and nothing else. Heaven help us—PLEASE!!!!!
What if Louie is correct?
How simple Catholicism was prior to 1965.
Dear Michael, my heart aches for you. You remind me of myself a while back. my2cents has some very good advice: PRAY YOUR ROSARY EVERY DAY as Our Lady asked at Fatima, get enrolled in the Brown Scapular and wear it always, make the Five First Saturdays of Reparation and pray the Fatima Morning Offering. Please quit making yourself crazy with all this research and obey what you know our Lord commands and TRUST Him. He WILL give you that peace He promises to those who love Him. Our Lady will protect you with her Holy Rosary, also called the Ladder to Heaven. Pray! And I will be praying for you. God bless
They’ve turned the “Nazi card” back on him. See “Downfall” of Bergoglio! video at voxcantor.blogspot.com (4 mins.)
Louie quotes Matthew 5:
“… It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife – unless the marriage is unlawful (in the Italian, illegittima, illegitimate) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. …”
.
“unless the marriage is unlawful “ is the so-called exception clause , which in Greek is :
parektos logou porneias ; and is usually translated something like: “except on account of immorality.”
.
But there is a less common translation of parektos that fits Jesus’ teachings better and would make the passage agree completely with parallel passages.
I think if we translated “parektos logou porneias” as “even on account of immorality “ or “regardless of immorality” or “despite immorality.” Then we would capture Jesus’ sense more fittingly.
.
This little phrase has allowed Catholic scholars to look for all kinds of exceptions to the marriage law of God. But I don’t think Jesus meant to allow for exceptions. It would fit Jesus’ teaching much better to translate parektos as “regardless”. This would fit well with Jesus’ raising of the bar for the Pharisees. Remember those Pharisees and other rabbis were constantly looking for the loopholes and exceptions in the law were those to whom Jesus gave His strongest criticisms. Jesus told His disciples their righteousness had to EXCEED that of the Pharisee.
.
Jesus’ teaching on marriage takes place right smack dab in the middle of a section where He repeatedly one-ups Moses and demands a higher level of righteousness for his followers than Moses demanded. Jesus is saying that Moses made a mistake in permitting divorce for “porneia”, the definition of which is vague and can be stretched to mean almost anything, from women showing too much ankle to them spending too much time at the well talking to men who they weren’t related to. Jesus is saying, in effect, “Screw porneia. Stay married to your wives, as God intended you to. Stop looking for a loophole that would allow you to get out of it.”
.
Besides, believing that Jesus is allowing for annulment is just a little too convenient for Catholics, who like to believe that divorce and annulment are two “totally different things”. But historically this is false. Annulment is a type of divorce; the main difference is the grounds for granting it.
Michael F Poulin
I was wondering why the Church can accept “natural” marriages between pagans, or even a natural marriage between a Christian and a pagan…but then when annulment time comes around, they are allowed to use the excuse “well folks, you never really had a SACRAMENTAL marriage, so that first one didn’t REALLY count.” (wink wink)
I am thinking the Church should get out of the mixed marriage/ annulment business and just say it will ONLY marry practicing Catholics period and if you don’t like being married for life then go somewhere else. Also there should be a two year waiting period, a signed permission slip from the fathers, and a security deposit…
Hi Michael, I saw your post at SD and I agree that this is an extraordinary time of confusion.
Thankfully there are no new rite priests anywhere near the SSPX in my area. I think that it is quite shaky that they let them in if they “feel” that the bishop had the right intention. I don’t like it, and if the situation arose, I would have to unfortunately sift the priests from the Priests, and not go to certain priests for confession.
I don’t say anything about my opinion on the Pope after Mass. I was advised not to by a sede when I took up the positon. I think I am right (or else I wouldn’t hold it), but it is a dark time of confusion, and I don’t think holding the sede position is a prerequisite for being a member of the Church.
I don’t see the need to go to the resistance. Nothing has happened and it is an unnecessary division that I think has jumped the gun. They are worried about not having Mass and Sacraments, so they stop going to Mass and receiving Sacraments. Again, confusion all around.
The SSPV are not anywhere near me. I am not sure about their position of refusing Communion to laymen and women who go elsewhere for Mass sometimes.
I don’t think Catholicism consists of staying home when the enormous graces that Our Lord intended for us to receive through the Mass and the Sacraments are available. One can go too far and try to work everything out, and end up falling off the cliff. We are the sheep. It is for the hierarchy to figure out the rest. I have a family and I want us to know what it is to believe and behave like a Catholic; staying home won’t accomplish that. I have heard that the stay at homers end up pretty messed up, and the children become worldly, as Catholicism becomes not much more than simply a book religion.
All this confusion ought to be sorted out by a Pope, which is an indicator that we don’t have one at the moment. It’s devastating. I sympathise with the anxiety you seem to be going through. No one is holding all the cards. We just have to sit tight, keep being Catholic and trust that God will bring us out of this in the state of Grace.
It really was. My father said it was great being Catholic in the 1950’s. It is almost unimaginable to think in 2017, but a local parish was like an SSPX chapel is today. Masses, Priests, schools, nuns, faithful, all on the same page. I can hardly believe it was really like that, being born at ground zero in the Vatican II era.
You must not go there. St Paul said we walk by faith, not by sight. Hold on!
The Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as marriage because non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic Canon Law. And those marriages do require annulments, if one of the parties later marries a Catholic.
The only way out which provided for me to hold it together was to take up the opinion that some guy says he’s the pope, when he actually isn’t. More simple than a 700 page book that says that in the end, the Church and the Papacy are dangerous and unreliable.
Does this help you? I’m not sweating on anyone else holding this opinion. If you’ve got something equal or better than this simple way to explain what has gone wrong, I’m all ears. It kept me from going mad (holding two contradictory views at the same time) and from losing the Faith.
It was not so in the beginning …
male and female he created them…
Gen 1:27 the two shall become one.
.
God hated divorce long before there was a Catholic Church or a Sacrament. I’m not buying the annulment stuff…
.
I don’t really care what Canon Law says either…
Even St Joseph (Matt 1:19) actually DISOBEYED Mosaic Law, (which was his Canon Law at the time) in desiring to put Mary away quietly; the Law which said that Mary had to be stoned to death for her assumed adultery. He disobeyed an unjust law – because he was a JUST man, even before he knew the full story.
The above quote from Francis shows once again his outrageous misleading error and interpretation of this verse Mat5:28 when Bergoglio says the following: “And Jesus says: who looks at a woman who is not his own with a spirit of possession is an adulterer in his heart, HE HAS BEGUN THE ROAD TO ADULTERY.” He is therefor misleadingly saying that to lust in ones mind about a woman who is not your wife is not a sin yet but is only a step that leads to the sin of adultery. This is not what this passage means according to the true teachings, that have always been taught and understood, from the Catholic Church.
Mat5:27-28 says the following “27] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. [28] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29]”
If we begin from verse 27 rather than Francis’s chosen verse28 we see very clearly that our Lord was now saying that it is not only the actual physical act of adultery that you commit that makes you an adulterer but that our Lord steps it up by saying even your willful thoughts of adultery make you an adulterer and causes you to be in mortal sin of adultery. The Haddock Douay-Rheims Bible commentary says this about this verse, “Jesus Christ here perfects the old law, which( the old law previously) makes no mention of the acts of the mind and will”
It is so key to be aware of this distinction and truth that is clearly not being made by Bergoglio or taught, but that actually is misleading one to believe in the modern heresy of the so called sodomites who are excused of and excuse themselves of not sinning when they don’t act on their desires for someone of the same sex. They use the excuse that they are exempt from any sin because they were born that way and that to have these desires is not a sin because after all God made them that way and on top of that they are not acting on it.
I can’t tell you how often I have tried to explain this outrageous error and it seems to fall on mostly deaf ears.
Papal Subject, I know how you feel, we’re all trying to make sense of what does not make sense. There are no historical references for this. I’m still looking at the fake pope vs real pope idea.
It is all crazy making. A pox on these destroyers.
Remember the Confiteor that we say at every Mass. ” I confess to almighty God…….that I have sinned in THOUGHT, word and deed….” I can only guess that this “thought” thing is scoffed upon and ridiculed as now being far too scrupulous to examine our thoughts in our hip, unhinged day and age.
How? With the Grace of God, narrowly.
You think its bad?
Try looking through a dumpster for food.
Dear Papal Subject—You are blessed to have a father who taught you how truly (aka) Catholic the world was before the scourge of Vatican II. Sometimes I think Vatican II came with a memory eraser which wiped out memories of the pre-Vatican II Church as if it never existed. What a terrible shame! The Modern Post-Conciliar “church” wants everyone to believe that there was no time before John XXIII opened the door to the mess we are now living in. May I recommend “American Catholic” by Charles R. Morris which gives a peek into what was once the world’s most powerful Church. The modernist robbed all Catholics of their true birthright. Very sad, indeed!
I can understand that you don’t see a need to go to the resistance. While it’s true that the SSPX hasn’t yet ‘reconciled’, I think that it’s pretty much a given that they will reconcile.
It has been reported by Fr. Girouard, a former priest of the SSPX, that Fr. Alain Nely the General Assistant of the SSPX, recently purchased a big house with a chapel in Rome, which is believed will be the future headquarters of the SSPX personal Prelature in Rome. The deal was done with the coordination of Guido Pozzo, head of Ecclesia Dei. I don’t think that this would have been done if a deal were not pretty a given.
I’ve never known Fr. Girouard to not be anything other than completely truthful in anything he has said, so I accept that this is true, though I understand if others may not believe it.
If anything, I would say the exact opposite is true. Pope Francis started his priesthood in the late 60’s while VII errors were already being implemented throughout the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict were both ordained priests before VII errors therefore they clearly knew what they were doing when they took sides with the modernists during VII so I can’t see any reason why you would think they were “confused” when they knew exactly the modernist, anti-tradional side they were teaming up with and that’s not to even mention that God gave them both a chance to correct their “confusion” thanks be to Archbishop LeFebvre confronting them but we all know how the “confused” Pope John Paul II handled that sutuation. As far as Pope Francis all he ever knew was VII stuff and don’t forget for 26 of those long years as a priest he was being taught how “GREAT” it was for Popes like PJPII “The Great” to be dissing all the past teachings of Popes before VII so in reality if any one has the excuse of not being a heretic due to “confusion” or so-called “invincible ignorance” it would be definitely be Pope Francis.
It is like George Orwell’s 1984, and I am not being facetious. While it’s much more than about the Mass, the Novus Ordo is the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Rite. The Novus Ordo has always been the “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Rite.
Those Popes were correct to comdemn heliocentrism and evolution since both of those are theories which cannot be proven via the scientific method. This is why they should not be promulgated as fact since they are unproven. The Church deals in objective truths.
So apostasy of the Magisterium of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a first world problem? That’s awesome.
The Marriage between two unbaptized persons or between a baptized person and a non-baptized is a true marriage, but it is considered a marriage under the Old Law viz. It can be dissolved, as in the case of the Jews before Our Lord came.
The reason God permitted them to divorce, was because of “the hardness of their hearts” i.e. In order to prevent them from murdering their wives in order to free themselves from an unwanted burden. It wasn’t until the coming of Our Lord that Holy Matrimony was restored to its original state, as men now had the aid of the Sacraments in order to rightly hold to their matrimonial engagements.
I meant “have not been proven”
The law was established by God, so it can hardly be labeled “unjust” unless you want to say that God can enact unjust laws. St. Joseph was torn between the evidence of apparent adultery and the sinlessness and evident extra-ordinary virtue of the B.V.M. Not being able to find a clear solution to the problem, he resolved to put Her away quietly.
The Church does actually teach that Catholics should only marry practicing Catholics; but Catholics don’t always listen to what the Church teaches or advises; so the Church will “tolerate” (i.e. Permit an evil) if there is a sufficient grave motive for doing so, such as the possible apostasy of the Catholic party; but only under certain conditions i.e. The non-Catholic party must agree in writing to raise any offspring in the one true faith; and allow the Catholic to freely practice their religion. The Catholic party on their part must promise to do all on their part to convert the non-Catholic to the true faith.
Yes, I have tried so many times since college in the late 1980s to explain that one may not endorse the notion of a person “being homosexual” in any objective sense, to do so is false and gravely sinful. It is to make God a liar and responsible for perversion freely adopted on the part of a person, against God, nature and reason.
I do agree with Johnno that the Gallileo fiasco was THEE major turning point in recent Church history whose main goal seems to have been to cause “confusion” amongst Catholics by undermining the credibility and authority of what the Church Fathers (Tradition) and Scripture have always taught trying to give Catholics and the world at large the general impression that if the Fathers and biblical authors were stupid enough to believe the earth was the center of the universe, an idea so basic and fundamentally wrong that even a first grader would laugh at, than how could we place any confidence, trust or even care about what the Fathers or Bible have to say about anything else.
And yes I do think that the Gallileo fiasco definitely played a major part in why PJPII, Pope Francis and other “catholic” media stars like Bishop Barron, Jimmy Akin could care absolutely less (confused?) what the Church Fathers, the Bible or pre-VII Popes have always taught even though I’m sure they would all somehow deny that they are guilty of doing this . Also, I believe it was in the name of trying to avoid this credibility “confusion” amongst Catholics we’re talking about that St. Bellarmine fought so passionately against the “fake science” of Gallileo and every day it becomes clearer and clearer he was right.
And for anybody who thinks heliocentrism is a settled scientific “fact” you might want to take a look at this movie. “The Principle” Movie Trailer: http://youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg
Here are some photos of the property that the SSPX has purchased, which is believed to be the possible headquarters of the future SSPX Personal Prelature in Rome:
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/02/exclusivo-fotos-de-la-posible-futura.html
In order to translate the page into English (it’s a Spanish language blog), just click on the American flag icon near the top of the page.
Thanks Lynda. This is precisely what makes the majority of so called Catholics lukewarm and not vigilant when it comes to judging their own sins and the sins of others. They don’t count ‘thoughts and words’ as actual sin just like the NFPers don’t count thoughts as sin and who must promote this belief in order to make their so called unnatural contraception work.
These sodomites could argue that they only have attraction to the same sex but they too fight the bad thoughts of going there and giving into their fantasy. Let us please get this straight, to be attracted to the opposite sex is healthy and not a sin, adultery is unhealthy and is a sin. To be attracted to the same sex is not only very unhealthy but it is an abomination, leads to mental and physical illness and must be fought and help must be sought.
Like I said before one cannot stress enough the need to correct this rampant error and mindset that willful thoughts don’t count as sin. This is why we have all these so called publicly professed sodomites scandalizing the Catholic faithful by publicly shoving their perversions down our throats and demanding that they be accepted as the way they are. Can you imagine someone publicly announcing that they are an adulterer but saying that because they don’t act upon it that you must not judge them nor must you not be on guard against them and that you must allow them to be around your spouse and or become a priest. I really hope that people become more aware of this slimy trickery that is being pushed upon us.
This is the confused door that has let sodomites in our Church and has been accepted by the confused public who too don’t uphold purity in thought, word or deed.
Dear mpoulin,
Please be very careful when saying that, “I don’t really care what Canon Law says either…
Even St Joseph (Matt 1:19) actually DISOBEYED Mosaic Law, (which was his Canon Law at the time) in desiring to put Mary away quietly; the Law which said that Mary had to be stoned to death for her assumed adultery. He disobeyed an unjust law – because he was a JUST man, even before he knew the full story.”
Canon law is absolutely needed even more so now with the diabolical and full infiltration and take over of the Catholic Church that we are witnessing today. Canon Law is what helps uphold the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Without canon law we would be no different than the protestants in being the private interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. Unfortunately the new 1983 code of cannon law is a liberal ambiguous nightmare in key places on marriage and celibacy and has allowed for a free for all interpretation on the requirements for the sacrament of marriage and the priesthood and for the requirements for validly. This new code doesn’t come right out and say it, just as they remained silent for the obligation of women to wear veils in Church, but in the area of the requirements for marriage it opened the doors by not defining grave mental deficiencies for marriage. Just because the code of canon law was tampered with during John PaulII reign doesn’t mean we should do away with it altogether. Unlike saint Joseph the canon laws came after the Church was fully established. Canon law is meant not to be unjust but to be upholding all of our Lords final Truths.
Please read the following because this is precisely what happens when one wishes to confine canon law to the dust bin. The following is a quote from two Vaticanistas for the left leaning newspaper ‘la Republica’ Cardinals La Rocca and Gronchi on the topic of the divorced and remarried being able to receive Holy Communion.
“Such practice has been undertaken by many priests for years ‘but finally it’s been codified, written down, thanks to the synods, to this great Pope,'” La Rocca claimed. He also dismissed the fact that canon law forbids offering the sacraments to those who publicly live in objective sin, saying “it’s petty to deny Communion because the law says so.”
We need Canon law and we need to be honest that annulments do exist and are not divorce. That not all sexual unions are marriages. What we to do need however, is to get rid of all those counterfeit so called Catholics who are tampering with the Code of Canon Law and the meaning of marriage and the priesthood and its requirements for validity.
If you look at the next line to the “exception” clause and ask yourself, “why do the disciples say this?” Because if Jesus supported the exception, NOTHING would change for your average Jewish guy who’s wife cheated on him, he would still be free to kick the little hussie to the curb. They would not have been surprised AT ALL. But the text implies that they ARE surprised by this teaching :
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
No way is your average guy going to accept guilt for his wife’s adultery – why else would they say: “it’s better not to marry.” ? if Jesus were giving them an escape clause that they already had.
God never permitted divorce/annulment; Moses did, and Jesus is correcting Moses.
It is against God’s Law to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ when not in a state of grace – this is objectively the case if one is in a public state of mortal sin. Lord have mercy.
Annulment in the true sense is not divorce. Where there is marriage, there must be annulment: where there are criteria for the fulfilment of marriage, there must be recognition of there being null marriage when all the necessary criteria for marriage have not been satisfied.
If there is a way to prove a marriage exists, there must also be a way to prove that a marriage does belt exist.
Of course, the true annulment has become contaminated by false notions, particularly in the expanding of reasons for a marriage to be voidable (as opposed to void).
Divorce, on the other hand, cannot exist where there was not a valid marriage. One cannot be divorced if one was not validly married. Divorce necessarily purports to end a valid marriage.
Well said Lynda. I so much appreciate your support in this battle for proper instruction in this awful time of crisis.
It seems that God has abandoned us, left us to stew in our sinful juices.
I struggle with this also, I just try and do the best I can, with the limited intelligence God has given me. I also pray for guidance.
I find it really hard to condemn the NO Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists etc. There is so much confusion out there, even from the so called hierarchy, there is no clear teaching, we are left on our own…..
Lately I have been doubting The Fatima apparitions . How could we go 100 years without them being fulfilled? What purpose do they serve ?
Even the prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success, they spoke of the 20th century with accuracy, but we are into the 21st century and those revelations haven’t been fulfilled.
Others speak of the Great Monarch….. lately all this just seems like wishful thinking.
We are a defeated people, a civilization in ruins, unless Jesus comes back in a New York minute we are all toast
Sorry if this comes across as giving up… I’m just so fed up errrrrr
In objective reality it is either not as bad as we think, or much worse than we can imagine. God being merciful only allows us to see what we can handle. Much of truth is still hidden. We think like men and not God. That said, God gives everyone of us the graces necessary for salvation. It is up to us to act on those graces. For some, it may defending the NO, for others it may be defending the R&R group, and for others it may be declaring Bergolio a fraud. What we have in common is the faith handed down to us for generations. In times like these we are instructed to hold fast to tradition. I dont think it means inaction. There is much that the trad community can do to restore the Church, but it wont happen if we do not clean house of the heresy that had infected the Church, that of Modernism.
“Do we wait for Salza and Siscoe, and A Catholic Thinker to tell us, in their dreaded “private judgement” whether or not the declaration is valid or not?”
–
I’ve got a better idea for you: Go follow, perhaps, Steven Speray, who will tell you which popes from the last 2,000 years were valid and which were not, or Richard Ibranyi, who has deposed every one from – I think 1200 or so.
–
Or you could stick with the “mainstream” sedes who have only deposed the last six, generally, based on their own determination of heresy (though often for entirely different reasons), not having any understanding at all of what the theologians *really* taught on these questions (or even what “heresy” means, for that matter).
–
In any case, I pretty much agree that you’re in over your head.
“I’m PERSONALLY willing to believe Benedict and John Paul are actually genuinely confused…”
–
A wonderful exposition of the sede mindset. 🙂
Indeed, the Church, at least in American, was completely thriving in the 50s. The “need” for a council was completely BS (which is evident also from the fact that this was the first & only ecumenical council to define no dogma and issue no anathemas).
The roots of your confusion are deep. The start with the idea that there’s just no such thing as a “really bad pope.” Then there’s the fact that you just refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are statements and binding teachings, and these aren’t the same thing. I’m sorry things can’t be reduced to utter simplicity.
–
Does it help to consider that Francis’ punishments for what he’s doing to the Church will be far worse if he is the pope? And, he is, you can count on that; that’s what the Church teaches. Dogmatic fact. Sorry if it just doesn’t feel good.
Papal subject:
While you may not see a need to go to the Resistance, there is indeed a great need for there to BE a resistance formed and operational when the ax falls in the near future. Perhaps things have been better in your SSPX parish, but mine has been in turmoil since 2012 and the near signing of that disastrous “preamble”. I shudder to think what may happen to the faithful when Rome seizes control of the Society chapels and there has been no provision made.