LifeSite News is reporting that three Eastern European prelates – Archbishop Tomash Peta, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider – have issued an appeal calling on faithful Catholics to join them in a “spiritual crusade,” praying:
“That Pope Francis may confirm the unchanging praxis of the Church with regard to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage.”
While this appeal is similar in many ways to others, it is noteworthy indeed.
Although addressed to the faithful of the entire Church, this call to prayer is accompanied by a rather lengthy text (available in full at the link above) that is clearly meant to serve as yet another act of admonishment and warning directed at Francis himself. In fact, one can reasonably assume that Francis has already received it.
Here, I offer what I consider to be some of the highlights:
The three bishops, in no uncertain terms, take Francis to task without even naming him when they write:
Pastors of the Church who tolerate or authorize, even in individual or exceptional cases, the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist by the divorced and so-called “remarried,” without their being clothed in the “wedding garment,” despite the fact that God himself has prescribed it in Sacred Scripture (cf. Matt. 22:11 and 1 Cor. 11:28-29) as the necessary requirement for worthy participation in the nuptial Eucharistic supper, such pastors are complicit in this way with a continual offense against the sacramental bond of marriage, the nuptial bond between Christ and the Church and the nuptial bond between Christ and the individual soul who receives his Eucharistic Body.
The text went on to cite as an example the “pastoral guidelines” for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia that were issued by the bishops of Buenos Aires; the same of which Francis said “there are no other interpretations.”
In so doing, it is perfectly clear to the well-informed (and most notably to Jorge Bergoglio himself) that this admonishment of “such pastors” applies first and foremost to Francis.
The gravity of the situation is made plain when the bishops write:
The previously mentioned pastoral guidelines contradict the universal tradition of the Catholic Church, which by means of an uninterrupted Petrine Ministry of the Sovereign Pontiffs has always been faithfully kept, without any shadow of doubt or of ambiguity, either in its doctrine or its praxis, in that which concerns the indissolubility of marriage.
Folks, we have a name for that which plainly contradicts the universal tradition and constant doctrine and praxis of the Church: HERESY.
For good measure, the bishops went on to offer various citations that serve to demonstrate just how directly the dogmas of the faith are being attacked in Amoris Laetitia; some of which stand out.
While each of the five questions that make up the dubia claim recourse directly to the post-conciliar magisterium (mainly Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor from John Paul II), this most recent admonishment and warning also invokes the Ten Commandments and the Council of Trent.
The observance of the Ten Commandments of God, and in particular the Sixth Commandment, binds every human person, without exception, always and in every situation. In this matter, one cannot admit individual or exceptional cases or speak of a fuller ideal. St Thomas Aquinas says: “The precepts of the Decalogue embody the intention of the legislator, that is God. Therefore, the precepts of the Decalogue permit no dispensation” (Summa theol. 1-2, q.100, a.8c).
In this, while the word “ideal” is not encased in quotation marks, it most certainly is intended as a direct refutation of Amoris Laeitita wherein marriage is presented as exactly this on numerous occasions. For example:
At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. (AL 36)
Elsewhere in the appeal, the bishops refute the errors of Francis more explicitly. They write, for example:
The adulterous union of those who are civilly divorced and “remarried,” “consolidated,” as they say, over time and characterized by a so-called “proven fidelity” in the sin of adultery, cannot change the moral quality of their act of violation of the sacramental bond of marriage, that is, of their adultery, which remains always an intrinsically evil act. A person who has the true faith and a filial fear of God can never be “understanding” towards acts which are intrinsically evil, as are sexual acts outside of a valid marriage, since these acts are offensive to God.
As they say…
They, of course, is none other than Francis and those who accept his false teachings; i.e., this is an obvious refutation of Amoris Laetitia (no. 298 in particular) which states:
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. 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.
The bishops go on to likewise refute Amoris Laetitia, albeit by implication yet again, by citing the Council of Trent no less than three times:
God gives to every man assistance in the observance of his Commandments, when such a request is properly made, as the Church has infallibly taught: “God does not command that which is impossible, but in commanding he exhorts you to do that which you are able, and to ask for that which you cannot do, and so he assists you that you might be able to do it” (Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 11) and “and if someone says that even for the man who has been justified and established in grace the commandments of God are impossible to observe: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18.)
If someone says … let him be anathema.
Someone; i.e., anyone – there is no exception for bishops in white.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
Anathema; i.e., “exclusion from the society of the faithful.” (cf Catholic Encyclopedia)
Now, for the crowning achievement of this most recent admonishment:
For the first time (as far as I know), we find bishops publicly calling Francis to account for what I (and no doubt others) long ago identified as the grave, fundamental error upon which the heresies and blasphemies of Amoris Laeitita rest:
The Church, and specifically the minister of the sacrament of Penance, does not have the faculty to judge on the state of conscience of an individual member of the faithful or on the rectitude of the intention of the conscience, since “ecclesia de occultis non iudicat” (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The minister of the sacrament of Penance is consequently not the vicar or representative of the Holy Spirit, able to enter with His light in the innermost recesses of the conscience, since God has reserved such access to the conscience strictly to himself: “sacrarium in quo homo solus est cum Deo” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et spes, 16).
Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat… The Church does not judge that which is hidden.
As I wrote back in September:
Ours – meaning, the Church and her sacred pastors – is to judge objective offenses alone and to address them accordingly. Indeed, this is all that mere human beings, including the pope, are capable of judging.
Yes, but the priest is given the authority to absolve us of our sins, in the name and in the Person of Christ, in the sacrament of Confession!
Ah, but then there’s that pesky little requirement called a “purpose of amendment” – the same that Francis bemoans as the fruit of “a certain scrupulosity concealed beneath a zeal for fidelity to the truth” on the part of “some priests.” (cf Amoris Laetitia footnote 364, which goes hand-in-hand with the infamous footnote 351)
In the case of Amoris Laetitia and its implementation, we are not speaking of penitents, but rather of those who intend to persist in their sin. As for culpability, this is God’s domain alone, and this is a crucial point.
Even the dreadful Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes gets this right:
God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone. (GS 28)
This, my friends, is precisely where the rubber meets the road (and the wheels come off the Bergoglian cart) in this entire affair; i.e., the warning issued by Our Lady of Fatima and commented upon by the future Pope Pius XII is unfolding right before our very eyes:
“A day will come when the Church will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” – Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli
In conclusion, while I would have much preferred to see His Excellencies Peta, Lenga, and Schneider condemn Amoris Laetitia completely and directly; calling its author by name to account for his heresies and blasphemies, I am delighted to see that the very heart of the matter is being addressed at long last.
De internis neque Ecclesia iudicat: Regarding the interior, not even the Church can judge.
These Kazakhstan Bishops are of good heart but each day something even more sinister emerges from the Vatican. At this stage it would be preferable if they, the four Cardinals & their supporters were tell us they were urgently making arrangements for us to be able to attend a valid & legal Mass & receive Holy Communion when the Greatest Schism will explode, which will be any day now.
Cardinal Koch: Martin Luther Would Have “Found His Own Council” in Vatican II @onpeterfive.com. This, following upon the Luther stamp to commemorate five hundred years of Protestantism instead of issuing a commemorative stamp for the centenary of the Fatima apparitions makes one wait in anticipation for the expected big quake in Italy to move directly under Casa Santa Marta Vaticano. Maybe it will.
Perhaps it’s time to turn our backs on the diabolical disorientation running rampant in the Modernist Church and focus on the 100th anniversary of the Miracle of Fatima.
Given he fact the Consecration of Russia has yet to be performed, we may want to gird our loins and put on sack clothe and ashes.
The folks in the SSPX are trying to come up with 19 million rosaries before then. I’m trying to do my part, but, surely there are other avenues to get the Pope’s attention. Let’s brainstorm this together and try to do get his attention.
Regarding the SSPX Rosary Crusade–Prayer is wonderful. Action is wonderful, too.
Well, well, this is getting very interesting. Card. Muller and Francis thought they had checkmated the dubia participants but they didn’t count on this latest development. They must have been counting on the continued cowardice of the bishops. Now they have another fire to put out before it becomes out of control. Imagine having to force the pope to confirm a dogmatic teaching of the Church! What times we are living in.
Thank God for the spiritual leadership of these bishops. May many other bishops begin to do their solemn duty and teach, uphold and defend the Holy Faith, and moral law. Even the basic Ten Commandments are under constant systematic attack from Francis and other heresy- and immorality-promoting bishops and priests. Yes let us all pray more as per various exhortations in this continuing year leading up to 100th anniversary of Fatima apparitions and warnings.
Conservative modernists accusing a progressive modernist. Wake up trads, we dont have a dog in this fight. Neither side in the AL debate speaks for true Catholicism. They both sold out in the 1960s.
Tom’s right. What the heck are we groveling at…the fact that a bishop is actually saying that adultery is a mortal sin and that one who is in mortal sin may not receive Communion? WOW! That sure takes courage. Thanks! It’s the least they could do, say the 6th commandment isn’t a lie. The reason why it takes so much courage and words is because these guys have just let it get to this. They’ve abandoned Truth and, therefore, we are being punished. I want to see someone in the hierarchy slam this tank down, not just hit it with a twig. What’s that going to do? “Well it’s a start,” some may say. Why does that make my stomach sick? Stop the nonsense. Even if Pope Francis gets the boot, what are we left with? THAT’S the grand finale?? This DUBIA thing is just a little fix for us all. In this oceansized cesspool, we’ve stumbled upon a soggy life jacket, with which we gratefully wrap ourselves up in as we sink. How pathetic! I doubt that this ship of Satan’s will go down with a dubia. I’d like to see some of these guys just SNAP OUT OF IT! When that happens we’ll ALL know it. But of course we know that won’t happen. We have been distracted. We must step back and look at the big picture…The sun, at Fatima, almost crashed into the earth. Russia has not been Consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. So what’s the point of the little dubia? It will be very evident when this crisis is over. Until then, I expect it to get much worse, to a point when all seems “paralyzed”, as Our Lady of Good Success said that it would seem during these dark times, because, She said, THAT WILL MARK THE HOUR OF HER ARRIVAL! When, She said, that she will trample that cursed serpent under Her feet and cast him down into the abyss. That, she said, is when it will be, THE HAPPY BEGINNING OF THE COMPLETE RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH. Hey, and have I ever mentioned here that at during that time, Our Lady of Good Success promised that Our Lord will send us an extremely Holy Prelate to be with The Church during Its complete restoration? So until then, say our Rosaries, wear our Brown Scapulars, live the Fatima message, and beg Our Lady for her protection as all hell breaks loose. Hang in there, She’s coming, and I pray I live to see that moment. Actually, although I am unworthy and insignificant, I boldly and selfishly dream to actually be able to see Her in action at the moment of Her arrival. That’s the one place I’d love to be in ALL of history. In the end Her Immaculate Heart will Triumph! Russia WILL be Consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart! She is our Hope! Our Lady of The Great Event!..Pray for us!
Christ said he wanted souls to be on fire and blazing hot or stone cold. It was the lukewarm ones he was going to vomit out. I am glad dear brother Cortez that you are in fire. I doubt this crisis will be solved by the hierarchy. They are almost to a man compromised and neutered. I believe its a call to the faithful laity to do the dirty work. We need to point our accusatory fingers at these quislings and demand action. Stop supporting the collection basket until they act. That goes for SSPX too. Your days of quietly resisting while padding the balance sheets should be over. Restore the Church! And please stop idolizing these lukewarm dubia cardinals. If they had a pair and were on fire for the faith, they would not be able to contain their rightheous indignation at the blasphemies commited by Francis and the sodomites. Where is their zeal for souls? If they had any it would show.
AL is the natural fruit of the rotten vine of the tree of schism set up in Vatican II.
It is ludicrous to think anyone committed to the new sect of protest against Christ and His Church, which is what Vatican II ushered in its false doctrines and practices modeled on Protestant/Jewish/Masonic ideology and theology, is going to change stripes and see the Light after a few of their brothers tries to recall to them and to themselves what Catholic doctrine is after it has been stripped away for 50 years.
The only place where the unaltered Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated, as well as the entire and true Sacred Deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition has been kept, with no doubts about the validity of the ordination of the priest or bishop and exactly as the Holy Mass was codified in the Council of Trent is through the sedevancantist chapels.
I have TWO points to make: 1) doctrine and dogma are very different. Let’s be VERY CLEAR which you are talking about; 2) if Francis was elected by cardinals who were de-facto excommunicated because they formed a cabal by pre-arrangement to the conclave, then Francis may not have received the charism of “Inerrancy” even though he is Pope. In this respect I note how poorly Francis conforms to the prophecy of St. Malachy as being the “Pope of the present age.” But, then again, he is not Pope “AFTER” Benedict XVI who conforms well to “from the branch of the olive” – because Benedict is STILL Pope. The Pope AFTER Benedict XVI will be the last Pope, “Peter The Roman,” possibly Cardinal Peter Turkson?
Sedevacantism states there have been no valid Popes or Hierarchies for simply yonks (centuries) & none that were valid are still alive, so how on earth can they claim Apostolic Succession? The Gates of Hell would have prevailed at least more than a century ago. They have no faculties to administer the Sacraments of the CC, nor to celebrate a valid & licit Mass, nor do they have the authority, infallibility or indefectibility to do anything let alone licence or ordain priests. They cannot prove that God hasn’t sustained His Sacraments (ex opere operato) even if VII was invalid nor can they direct us to where the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church exists, ie. the visible Church of Christ on earth & not the unscriptural invisible one of Protestantism. As faithful Catholics our only necessity when all this mess is eventually clarified is to know which side will come out holding Apostolic Succession intact, for that is where God will reside & not in any wild imaginings of the Dimond Brothers.
If you are going to criticize sedevacantism, which you are perfectly free to disagree with since its only an opinion and not dogmatic, you should at least take the time to research the various positions held by sedevacantist in order to make an educated rebuttal. What you just posted is nonsense. It may make you feel morally superior but for many you simply show your ignorance on this subject.
Ratzinger is still the valid pope? Is that what you guys are still preaching? Ratzinger was one of the initial proponents of the vatican 2 religion….which is why we are where we are….and he, ratzinger, HAS YET TO RENOUNCE V2 in totality as an anti-Catholic bunch of useless utterances. Why would this guy be a true pope if JP2 wasnt a true pope, as jp 2 was a son of the false council that ratzinger helped to further? If ratzinger IS a true pope than how isnt bergoglio a true pope? When you need to jump through this many hoops in order to make sense, then you need to come to the logical conclusion that what you are saying makes no sense. Wake up.
I agree with you here. The people who argue that Pope Francis is not the true Pope based on his heretical words/actions but that the five previous Popes who were guilty of 97% of the same exact heresies some how were true Popes makes absolutely no sense at all. I figure most of them are protestant converts who recently junped on the trad wagon and really have no idea how bad it
was even before Pope Francis.
Im not sure what is leading Catholics of good faith anymore. My personal opinion is that there is a true hatred for the sede position (thank you s/s), and because of that hatred almost the entirety of the masonic council of 1965 has been put on the back burner….because right now its much more convenient to blast Jorge Bergoglio instead of blasting the root problem.
This isnt to say that Catholics of good faith dont see the errors of the masonic council, but only that they still consider it Catholic to begin with. Its is the worst of the protestant “reformation”. The novus ordo masonic sect is surely the most evil thing that Catholicism has ever encountered.
Rich, I am fairly new to true tradition having only recently escaped the NO wasteland. It took a lot of thought, prayer, and study to finally say enough is enough. I tried to understand the SSPX position of resistance but their arguments always seemed lacking. The NO bishops and clergy are very good at using their authority to keep their trads from going SSPX. I am comvinced this is why we got the indult masses (always at inconvenient times), to placate stubborn trads. Does sedevacantism answer all the questions as to what happened to thr Church? Of course not. But is clears up more questions than it creates. I am not blinded by complex legal arguments (s/s), nor am I blinded by who has title to the real estate deed of the Cathedrals. I listen and read what they say. And what has been coming out of Rome and the average pulpit for the last 50 years is not the Catholic faith. Logic and reason (both God given gifts to man) demand that anyone or anything professing a faith other than the Catholic faith cannot be Catholic. It is that simple. St Paul warns us to avoid anyone professing a Gospel other than the one handed down. When there is a Pope who professes Catholicism, I will be obligated to assent. The last 59 years we have had no Pope professing Catholicism therefore no Pope to assent to.
And yet, you cannot refute the fact that they are the ones who have held steadfast in believing and teaching the Catholic faith handed down through the Apostles, the fullness of both the Sacred Deposit of the Faith and Sacred Tradition. They have not introduced confusion and contradictions.
I believe it is my duty to know where God resides now, not “when this mess is eventually clarified.” And I know with certainty that He does not reside in an organization of men who clearly are responsible for aiding and abetting Christ’s enemies, confusing the little ones, making ambiguous and contradictory claims about His revealed doctrines, inventing a sacrilegious and blasphemous liturgy, and elevating man above God.
Our focus should be on Christ. On following Him even unto death. On living as He commands. On pleasing, praising, and glorifying God in all we say and do. On being that light of the world where those living in darkness can see us as the example of Christ living in the world. On saving our souls and saving the souls of the whole world.
Tom A: The simple truth. You speak it. What has come out of Rome and the average (I would say the majority) pulpit for the last 50 years is not the Catholic faith. Both logic, reason, and history prove this. Sacred Scripture teaches, as you point out, that we are to avoid anyone professing a Gospel other than the one handed down.” How much clearer could this be stated? Yet, the R&R group and the pope worshippers do not believe the very words of the Bible let alone the historical teaching of the Church for 1900+ years.
That is not a correct statement. The validity of sedevacantist “orders” is seriously in doubt. Many Traditionalists reject them out of hand, along with their fake priests and bishops.
I post again to add: What I meant above does not relate to the orders of men like Sanborn, Dolan, and Cekada. They are valid priests. I reject the idea that any of them are bishops, and so do many Catholics.
We also reject the idea that any of the priests/bishops consecrated by, say, those in the Thuc line, have validity. Some, like those mentioned above, are valid priests though.
The Thuc line does have its controversy, no doubt. But not all sedes are not of the Thuc line. Again, the orders you should really be concerned with are the NO orders.
Hitler: So…where is everybody?
Satan: Oh … Pope Francis let everyone out… say, could you turn the lights out when I leave?
Vatican II did openly deny defined dogma. Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.). The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.
In the event it is of interest, please see my Apologia for the orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia. https://reducedculpability.blog/2017/01/19/amoris-laetitia-an-apologia-for-its-orthodoxy/