On Saturday, April 11, 2015, Pope Francis issued the Bull of Indiction for the Holy Year of Mercy set to commence on December 8, 2015.
In order to truly appreciate the gravity of the declaration, it is important to bear in mind its unstated purpose; namely, to set the stage for the implementation of the “pastoral solutions” that Pope Francis and his cohorts intend to propose at the Synod of Bishops in October.
The document is predictable in any number of ways, starting with the fact that it is unnervingly verbose; weighing in at some 9,300 words. (Thus the unnerving length of this post.)
Equally as predictable are the copious amounts of misappropriated Scripture citations that litter the text.
These are hallmarks of the innovators.
You see, in order to give their designs the appearance of “continuity,” it is necessary to weave a web sufficiently complex as to deflect attention away from the gaping holes in their argument, even as they employ what sounds like Catholic language.
Passing on the Faith that was received, by contrast, is a far more straightforward endeavor.
That, however, is not the intent in the present case; thus the utter lack of reference to the popes and councils that predate Vatican II.
Even as Pope Francis cites “the great teaching offered by Saint John Paul II,” he can do so only very selectively as he dare not call attention to the Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, issued after the Synod of Bishops in 1980 reaffirming the Church’s inability to invite people in certain situations to Holy Communion.
In the manner of the modernists, even as the document makes statements that offend Catholic sensibilities, it also provides “sound bites” of authentic Catholic truth that can (and will) be quoted individually by the defenders of all things Francis to support the illusion of conformity with the mind of the Church.
At the end of the day, what is most important, however, is what the document does not say, starting with the fact that for all of its talk about mercy and forgiveness, nowhere does it suggest the necessity of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner.
For instance, the document tells us:
When faced with the gravity of sin, God responds with the fullness of mercy. Mercy will always be greater than any sin, and no one can place limits on the love of God who is ever ready to forgive.
Of course God’s love is limitless as is His mercy, but until we are ready to receive the forgiveness offered, firm in the intention “to go and sin no more” as best we are able, we do in fact place limits on our access to His mercy.
This truth goes unstated throughout the entirety of the document for the simple reason that it is irreconcilable with the pope’s desire for the upcoming Synod; namely, to formulate a pathway to Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and “remarried” apart from a remedy based in truth (to say nothing of active homosexuals).
While Pope Francis doesn’t mention the Synod by name, he does make a rather transparent (to me, anyway) attempt to argue in favor of the conclusions that he clearly wishes it to reach by connecting access to mercy with access to Holy Communion:
While he was instituting the Eucharist as an everlasting memorial of himself and his paschal sacrifice, he symbolically placed this supreme act of revelation in the light of his mercy. Within the very same context of mercy, Jesus entered upon his passion and death, conscious of the great mystery of love that he would consummate on the cross …
This love has now been made visible and tangible in Jesus’ entire life. His person is nothing but love, a love given gratuitously. The relationships he forms with the people who approach him manifest something entirely unique and unrepeatable. The signs he works, especially in the face of sinners, the poor, the marginalized, the sick, and the suffering, are all meant to teach mercy.
Translation: Who are we to impede those intent on staying in adulterous or homosexual relationships (“poor sinners”) who wish to approach the Eucharist (the “tangible” and “supreme act” of mercy) when Jesus Himself gives so “gratuitously”?
Further on, Pope Francis subtly suggests that Holy Communion precedes and enables detachment from sin.
In the Eucharist, this communion, which is a gift from God, becomes a spiritual union binding us to the saints and blessed ones whose number is beyond counting (cf. Rev 7:4). Their holiness comes to the aid of our weakness in a way that enables the Church, with her maternal prayers and her way of life, to fortify the weakness of some with the strength of others.
The document goes on to offer a lengthy exhortation on our Christian duty to pardon those who trespass against us.
This is true enough, but let’s not be naïve; the punchline is really all about the Church offering pardon in the name of Christ, and not in the way that she always has.
The temptation, on the one hand, to focus exclusively on justice made us forget that this is only the first, albeit necessary and indispensable step. But the Church needs to go beyond and strive for a higher and more important goal. On the other hand, sad to say, we must admit that the practice of mercy is waning in the wider culture. It some cases the word seems to have dropped out of use. However, without a witness to mercy, life becomes fruitless and sterile, as if sequestered in a barren desert. The time has come for the Church to take up the joyful call to mercy once more. It is time to return to the basics and to bear the weaknesses and struggles of our brothers and sisters. Mercy is the force that reawakens us to new life and instils in us the courage to look to the future with hope.
Pope Francis is setting up a false dichotomy between justice and mercy, even as he acknowledges the former as the “first, necessary and indispensable” step.
Why is justice first?
Justice is not simply a matter of judgment; rather, it concerns rendering to another what they are due.
The first demand of justice for every human being is to render unto God the honor and worship and glory that He is due simply because of who He is.
In the discussion about mercy, it is right that we place justice first.
Simply because God is mercy! He is the Author and dispenser of mercy!
In order to avail oneself of mercy, therefore, we must first turn our hearts toward Him.
With this in mind, we might ask, who is the pope accusing of focusing “exclusively on justice”?
The answer isn’t hard to figure out; it’s the Cardinal Burkes of the world whom he goes on to lecture (albeit under the pretense of offering counsel to the faithful):
To refrain from judgement and condemnation means, in a positive sense, to know how to accept the good in every person and to spare him any suffering that might be caused by our partial judgment and our presumption to know everything about him. But this is still not sufficient to express mercy. Jesus asks us also to forgive and to give.
To give what?
And everyone knows that the Eucharist in the minds of the innovators is primarily what?
Pay attention, and you will see the dots being connected toward the end of the text:
Jesus affirms that, from that time onward, the rule of life for his disciples must place mercy at the centre, as Jesus himself demonstrated by sharing meals with sinners. Mercy, once again, is revealed as a fundamental aspect of Jesus’ mission. This is truly challenging to his hearers, who would draw the line at a formal respect for the law. Jesus, on the other hand, goes beyond the law; the company he keeps with those the law considers sinners makes us realize the depth of his mercy.
Let’s not be fooled, however: Jesus does not “go beyond the law,” nor did He ordain His Church to do so.
He is the Author of the Law, and His Church is bound by it.
To Pope Francis, the idea of being bound by the law is simply unacceptable.
Further along in the document, he misappropriates Sacred Scripture to set up yet another false dichotomy; this time between faith and the law:
For his part, Jesus speaks several times of the importance of faith over and above the observance of the law. It is in this sense that we must understand his words when, reclining at table with Matthew and other tax collectors and sinners, he says to the Pharisees raising objections to him, “Go and learn the meaning of ‘I desire mercy not sacrifice.’ I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mt 9:13). Faced with a vision of justice as the mere observance of the law that judges people simply by dividing them into two groups – the just and sinners – Jesus is bent on revealing the great gift of mercy that searches out sinners and offers them pardon and salvation..
In the passages cited, Jesus was admonishing those who would create the very false dichotomy that Pope Francis is attempting to sell!
As it is, Our Lord is speaking very specifically of the provisional “law of ordinances” that He “abolished in His flesh” (cf Eph 2:15); He is not speaking of the law of the Holy Catholic Church that teaches in His name.
Be that as it may, faith has ever been part and parcel of God’s law; not “over and above.”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (Matthew 23:23)
He is saying that carrying out the jot tittle of the law apart from faith is of no avail.
Our Lord is not suggesting that faith is above observance of the law; rather, he makes it perfectly clear that the two go together when He says, “without neglecting the others!”
What Pope Francis is suggesting here is tantamount to dividing the House of God against itself.
And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Matthew 12:25)
It becomes all the more obvious that Pope Francis is taking aim here at those bishops who might dare to oppose his Synodal dreams of going “beyond the law” as he writes:
Let us not fall into humiliating indifference or a monotonous routine that prevents us from discovering what is new! Let us ward off destructive cynicism! Let us open our eyes and see the misery of the world, the wounds of our brothers and sisters who are denied their dignity, and let us recognize that we are compelled to heed their cry for help!
Ah yes, we must discover “what is new!”
Later in the document, all are encouraged, “Let us allow God to surprise us.”
(I’ll offer to readers some encouragement of my own: Let us never forget that the “God of Surprises” is simply the nom du plume for Jorge Bergoglio.)
The “monotonous routine” of which Pope Francis speaks is really nothing less than the faithful application of immutable doctrine in the discipline of the Church.
To this pope, however, this is an obstacle to be overcome, which is precisely why the Lineamenta for the upcoming Synod cautions the bishops:
…to avoid, in their responses, a formulation of pastoral care based simply on an application of doctrine, which would not respect the conclusions of the Extraordinary Synodal Assembly and would lead their reflection far from the path already indicated.
The Bull provides what could have been a decent exhortation on the sacrament of confession, but given the total lack of encouragement to contrition and a firm purpose of amendment on the part of sinners, it is gravely deficient.
In any case, in his effort to encourage sinners to avail themselves of God’s mercy such as he does, Pope Francis went on to single out two groups:
I particularly have in mind men and women belonging to criminal organizations of any kind … The same invitation is extended to those who either perpetrate or participate in corruption.
I guess we can’t be entirely surprised. After all, this is the same pope who pointed to youth unemployment as one of the major challenges facing his pontificate.
If there was any plausible reason to believe that Pope Francis in speaking of criminal organizations and corruption was referring to Planned Parenthood and the Democrat party (or their counterparts such as they exist in other nations), I’d say “Bravo!”
As it is, I’m not sure anyone knows for certain what Pope Francis had in mind.
Even so, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the criminals who conspired to steal those copies of the book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ, that were mailed to participants in last October’s Extraordinary Synod.
Francis being a true son of Vatican II (as opposed to the Church) cannot help but wax ecumenical:
There is an aspect of mercy that goes beyond the confines of the Church. It relates us to Judaism and Islam, both of which consider mercy to be one of God’s most important attributes. Israel was the first to receive this revelation which continues in history as the source of an inexhaustible richness meant to be shared with all mankind.
While we know very well that what the Lord spoke is true, “Your Father who is in heaven makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (cf Mt. 5:45), we must also affirm that He established but one way for the sinner to attain the mercy that leads to salvation, and that is the Catholic Church.
No one can avail themselves of mercy apart from Christ, and “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing” (cf Pope Pius XI, Humani Generis – 27)
Secondly, in Pope Francis’ defense, I should point out that the translation is incorrect is saying, “this revelation which continues in history.”
In the Italian original, the pope speaks of revelation “che permane nella storia,” or that “remains in” or is a permanent part of history.
(Let it not be said that I am out to attack the pope; rather, I am simply out to defend the truth.)
Pope Francis continues down the ecumenical brick road:
Among the privileged names that Islam attributes to the Creator are “Merciful and Kind.” This invocation is often on the lips of faithful Muslims who feel themselves accompanied and sustained by mercy in their daily weakness. They too believe that no one can place a limit on divine mercy because its doors are always open.
The diabolical influence on this pope is unmistakable! Imagine, a Roman Pontiff citing Islam; a false religion that rejects Jesus Christ as a reliable source for commentary on the Creator’s mercy.
I trust that this Jubilee year celebrating the mercy of God will foster an encounter with these religions and with other noble religious traditions; may it open us to even more fervent dialogue…
Ah yes, dialogue is the mission of the church-of-man that emerged from Vatican Council II, of which Pope Francis went on to say:
With the Council, the Church entered a new phase of her history. The Council Fathers strongly perceived, as a true breath of the Holy Spirit, a need to talk about God to men and women of their time in a more accessible way. The walls which too long had made the Church a kind of fortress were torn down and the time had come to proclaim the Gospel in a new way. It was a new phase of the same evangelization that had existed from the beginning. It was a fresh undertaking for all Christians to bear witness to their faith with greater enthusiasm and conviction. The Church sensed a responsibility to be a living sign of the Father’s love in the world.
Indeed, “newness” marks the conciliar program, but the documents it produced, much less the direction in which the Barque of Peter has been sailing ever since, is not to be blamed on the “breath of the Holy Spirit.”
In order to believe that this is the case, one must accept the pope’s evaluation of the pre-conciliar Church was not a “living sign of the Father’s love;” rather, it was a “fortress” whose walls had to be “torn down.”
As for the idea that we are experiencing a “new phase” of “the same evangelization that had existed from the beginning,” tell that to St. Peter who plainly called the Jews to conversion, or to St. Francis of Assisi who boldly confronted the Islamists.
There is more that could be discussed here, but in the name of mercy I will leave it at this with one final thought:
Based on all that’s been said, it seems to me that the Bull of Indiction would perhaps be better named the Indiction of Bull.
That is a very good reflection indeed….for me the key point is worth repeating three times:
“for all of its talk about mercy and forgiveness, nowhere does it suggest the necessity of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner.”
“for all of its talk about mercy and forgiveness, nowhere does it suggest the necessity of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner.”
“for all of its talk about mercy and forgiveness, nowhere does it suggest the necessity of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner.”
Thank you Mr Verrecchio.
It seems VII Church has a hard time remembering even its own teachers:
Dives in Misericordia
Encyclical on the Mercy of God
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
November 30, 1980
“…134. Mercy in itself, as a perfection of the infinite God, is also infinite. Also infinite therefore and inexhaustible is the Father’s readiness to receive the prodigal children who return to his home. Infinite are the readiness and power of forgiveness which flow continually from the marvelous value of the sacrifice of the Son. No human sin can prevail over this power or even limit it. On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit it, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ.”
By these words of Pope John Paul II, obstinance in sin, or lack of repentance limits God’s mercy. VII church under JB seems ready to commit repentance to Davy Jones’ locker. Notice the prodigal son had repented in his heart before returning to the father; he was willing to forgo even his sonship just for the sake of approaching his father to beg forgiveness. He admitted his sin against God and his father, and this is what brought joy to the father. The VII church thinks it can handout cheap grace to attract sinners, well that is just a slick con job. To allow the unrepentant to the Eucharist is sacrelige of the highest order. We already know the bishops and priests are a lost case, but is it too much to ask that the popes and cardinals running the church be informed of Scripture and sacred Tradition beyond the sixth grade level?
Michael F. Poulin
The “year of mercy” is the Trojan horse that Jorge Mario Bergoglio intends to use to finally raze down the remaining walls (or vestiges of Catholicism) that still remain within the conciliar church.
“So many people, including the youth, are returning to the Sacrament of Reconciliation; through this experience they are rediscovering a path back to the Lord, living a moment of intense prayer and finding meaning in their lives. Let us place the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the centre once more in such a way that it will enable people to touch the grandeur of God’s mercy with their own hands. ”
Question: Does this not suggest a call for repentance, contrition and a firm purpose of amendment?
“Placing the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the centre once more” seems to contradict the most important part of the article, which states : “for all of its talk about mercy and forgiveness, nowhere does it suggest the necessity of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner.”
Or am I missing something??
In the interest of accuracy, a bit of a Ditto to Ever mindful’s question above:
We see two other references a bit further down in the document-
–“Bishops are asked to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation with their people” (Although that could mean anything these days)
—and another that says:
—“.. we also feel the effects of sin typical of our fallen state… IN THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION, GOD FORGIVES OUR SINS…, which he truly blots out; and yet sin leaves a negative effect on the way we think and act. But the mercy of God is stronger than even this. It becomes indulgence on the part of the Father who, through the Bride of Christ, his Church, reaches the pardoned sinner and frees him from every residue left by the consequences of sin, enabling him to act with charity, to grow in love RATHER THAN TO FALL BACK INTO SIN.”
Granted, as you wrote, there ARE no specific references to the words “contrition” and “firm purpose of amendment”, but each of those are implied in the valid reception of this Sacrament and in NOT FALLING BACK INTO SIN, aren’t they?
As per usual, what we have come to expect of Louie. Apart from the theology, I am awed by the extraordinary combination of brilliant analysis presented in cogent pedagogic form. A great thinker and teacher.
It is interesting to me that today I watched Michael Voris today go through his getting to be tiring problems of homosexuality in the Church tirade. Yet, he cannot get himself to discuss the essence of the Church’s problems coming from the Pope.
While, the homosexual issues are real and important, the problem cannot be solved unless one recognizes that no Church problem (homosexual or otherwise) can be solved without consideration of the profound role of the Pope in Church teachings and clerical behavior.
Louie on the other hand is ‘cutting to the chase’, as they say, and dealing with essence of all Church issues – the Pope!
Off topic note to Louie…
What happened to “The Tradwriter”?
I haven’t seen one in a while and I’m even having trouble find them in archives. Has new blog formate caused them to be dropped? I hope not. They are brilliant and effective.
The way VII church operates is, they keep paying lip service to what the Church did in the past, while undermining Sacred Scripture and Tradition in practice. The document is there to provide a cover, a smokescreen, while they go ahead- as promised by the Germans- and do whatever they feel like. So the appeal to the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a bone they are throwing out to cover their backsides from snarling Traditionalist…(who by the way receive no mercy)
When St. Paul says: 1 Cor 11:27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
VII Church responds “of course you must go to Confession before receiving Communion.” But in “pastoral” practice, they “say” just the opposite, allowing everybody and their goldfish to receive. In this manner they can paint Traditional Catholics as big bad joyless scolding mercy-blocking bullies who want to impose rules and regulations and the law, which Christ supposedly overturned a-la Protestantism, and make you go to that incomprehensible jibberish Latin thingy and make women wear doilies on their heads. By misquoting scripture they want to get Saint Paul to say that Jesus abrogated all laws, which is the same false interpretation of Martin Luther’ take on the Book of Romans… . So JB says things like “…For his part, Jesus speaks several times of the importance of faith over and above the observance of the law. …” So pope Francis lumps in the eternal laws of the Church with Jewish Mosiac sacrifices! This is the same trick Protestants try to do, lump in the Mosaic system put in place after the golden calf incident, with all the moral law and laws of the Church, such as Saint Paul’s “law” in 1 Cor 11:27 stated above. We have seen already the attempt at the last “synod” to allow unrepentant sinners to Holy Communion in direct opposition to Saint Paul in the Scriptures.
I am sorry but I just do not trust this man nor the gang of eight around him.
Michael F . Poulin
The “mercy” that the Pope talks about is generally used in a false humanistic, relativistic and materialist way, to attack the truth of Faith and morals in respect of Divine Law, sin, repentance, conversion and objective evil. I see nothing of true mercy in what the Pope refers to as “mercy”, nothing of God’s mercy, rooted in truth and justice. It all seems absurd, a rejection of reason and the One, True Faith as revealed to us by Our Lord, through The Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium of His Holy Church.
The Sacrament of Penance is the means given to us by Our Lord to receive forgiveness of our sins (absolution). It requires confession to a validly ordained priest, a sincere purpose of amendment, sorrow for sins and acts of penance. Catholics are blessed to have this wonderful sacrament. This pope or any other pope cannot improve on what the Lord has given us no matter how many words he writes.
Wasn’t Vatican II the Trojan horse, and this Indiction of Bull – the Dirty Bomb?
Lest we forget, this is the same antinomian Bergoglio who pulled a world wide media stunt by calling a women in the state of adultery in Argentina to let her off the Catholic hook (or throw her out of Christ’s net) by stating, ‘it’s just some bread and wine’.
Bergoglio said: ‘There is an aspect of mercy that goes beyond the confines of the Church.’ Which confines? A ‘pope’ pouring gasoline on the Word of God and inviting every Christ denier/fearer/hater to dance on the ashes in an orgy of modernist-prescribed ‘mercy’ has what confines? Exactly – none. Perhaps Bergoglio has been reading Matthew Fox, who traded his way into New Age Katholicsim on the back of religious indifference and the doctrine “Cosmic” ‘Christ Consciousness.’ It is a pity that Bergoglio is not seen by ‘Tradition’, in the same light as Mr Fox.
Some say Solovyev converted to Rome before he died, others (the Orthodox Church which was his ‘father’s faith’) denied it. He wrote a ‘Short Story of the Antichrist’, which, despite its schismatic apologetics (which means he probably didn’t convert), paints an inter-religious-interdenominatioanl-inter-athiestic-in-to-sinning man – the antichrist – that could set a mould for some recent anti-papcies.
Louie writes: “[Bergoglio] is setting up a false dichotomy between justice and mercy”.
It is also well known that Bergoglio has a general fixation with “gossip” and a penchant for dishing out insults. In this context, consider how the following particular, and very serious allegation, reads (emphasis in bold added):
“Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was closely involved in the case of Father Julio Cesar Grassi, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty of molesting a boy in his care. Details are murky, but Anne Barrett-Doyle, who runs the website Bishop-Accountability.org, which has tracked the case closely, told me this week that Grassi remained free on conditional release until September 2013, when his final appeal was rejected, at least in part because of a private report commissioned by Bergoglio that sought to prove Grassi’s innocence and, according to Barrett-Doyle, to discredit the victims“.
The above extract is from this opinion piece, dated July 2014. A related article, from March 2013, may be read here.
It would be interesting to hear what some of the people involved in these concrete situations, including victims and their advocates, would make of Bergoglio’s abstract writings on justice and mercy.
Lest we forget Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel assures everyone that Bergoglio was completely ignorant regarding the disappearance of 30,000 Argentines and so his silence was merely innocence.
Would that be the same silence with regards to the Catholic Faith?
mpoulin writes: “By misquoting scripture they want to get Saint Paul to say that Jesus abrogated all laws”.
This is an excellent analysis. You may be interested in the following two quotes (with emphases in bold added):
1) From Jorge Bergoglio –
“The people of that time [i.e. the time of Matthew 11:16-19] preferred to take refuge in a more elaborate religion: in the moral precepts, such as the group of Pharisees; in political compromise, as the Sadducees; in social revolution, as the zealots; in gnostic spirituality, such as Essenes”.
Homily, as reported by Vatican Radio, December 13, 2013. Link here.
2) From The Catholic Encyclopedia (on “Obligation”) –
“St. Paul, of course, only preached the doctrine of his Master. The legalism which he rejected was the ceremonial and the merely outward observance of the Pharisees, not the internal and the external observance of the moral law. Although the Gentile had not the moral law written on tablets of stone, yet he had it written on the fleshy tablets of his heart, and his conscience bore witness to it, as did that of the Jew (Romans 2:14). This is the doctrine still taught in the Catholic Church. It derives straight from Christ and His Apostles…. Since the Reformation it has been the fashion with many to reject it as legalism in favour of what is called Christian liberty. Christian liberty, however, interpreted by private judgment, developed into various systems of so-called independent morality”.
Louie, there is a small typo in your lengthy blog entry
“He is saying that carrying out the jot tittle of the law apart from faith is of no avail”
Seems they can be found here:
@my2cents: you are absolutely correct to reiterate that the Sacrament of Penance contains the means by which those who believe can seek God’s absolution for their sins. I wonder is their any reference to attendance at confession throughout the document?
Thanks for your excellent well-thought out comment. I heartily agree with your analysis.
What you are missing (it seems to me at least) is an understanding of what “sin” means to people like Bergoglio. Remember, these people don’t believe that it is a SACRILEGE to receive communion in a state of mortal sin!!
To them, sin is mostly about what the conscience is telling you (and that is important, but it has to be a WELL FORMED conscience), and NOT about the Church’s moral laws!
So, their call for people to go to confession becomes utterly meaningless, and many of the “confessions” they are encouraging people to make are null, void, and blasphemous, another source of offense to Our Blessed Lord, further drawing the wrath of God upon the “penitent”!
Bergoglio actually reminds me a lot of those heretical/schismatic sects (“Old Catholics”, “Polish National Catholic Church”, Greek/Russian Orthodox, etc) that have dropped off like dry branches from the vine of the Lord. One by one, they all ended up denying Our Lord’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, or have opened up to homosexuals (“Old Catholics”), etc, all the while “retaining” the sacrament of confession (which, as per post-conciliar practice, becomes de facto optional, and certainly not obligatory).
Thank you. I am doing research for an article about Louie’s work for my blog on an Italian American site and this is a big help.
We agree wholeheartedly, with your assessment of modernist machinations., and were working on a comment similar to yours, complete with citations from St. Cyprian against the lapsi receiving communion prior to public penitence; two catechism statements -including the dogmatic one from Trent on mandating a state of Sanctifying Grace before receiving, and this one, from St. Justin:
–“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation..”
We sidetracked to add to our Ever mindful’s comment above, because we feel there is legitimate reason to be concerned with the accuracy of statements we Faithful Catholics publish, so we are not discrediting ourselves as untrustworthy commenters. Louie’s words were technically true, but with so many references by the Pope to the Sacrament of Reconciliation–which is NOT his usual practice from what we’ve seen over the last 2 years–when speaking of Mercy, we felt it was important to call these facts to his attention, as EM was apparently trying to do also.
Also regarding unworthy reception/sacrilege, and divorced adulterers, which the Pope definitely seems to be trying to pave the way for “pastorally allowing”–as this document is so focused on Mercy AND Eucharist, we point out that St. Pius X’s catechism states:
” mortal sin–brings death on the soul by making it lose sanctifying grace which is the life of the soul, just as the soul itself is the life of the body.
(1) Mortal sin deprives the soul of grace and of the friendship of God;
(2) It makes it lose Heaven;
(3) It deprives it of merits already acquired, and
renders it incapable of acquiring new merits;
(4) It makes it the slave of the devil;
(5) It makes it deserve hell as well as the chastisements of this life.
–So we see that souls in a state of mortal sin, cannot even BENEFIT from reception of this Sacrament, which is of the greatest benefit to those in a state of Grace. This restriction to living souls, is No diminution of God’s Mercy, but natural consequence of serious sin in which Free Will has chosen to reject God to the point of Death.
Sorry, the above response was meant for the spot further down, after our comments regarding the Pope’s mentions of the Sacrament of Penance and your response to it.
Please see our response, (accidentally) went higher up.
In the National “Catholic” Distorter Cardinal Braz is quoted as saying that those that distance themselves from VII are killing themselves and will eventually die. Hmmmm… Like the FFI? Were they killing themselves? Or was someone else attempting to kill them??
dude it’s all a continuum of modernistmercy and the modernists get to decide where ‘annihilation’ falls since there’s no hell.
Luke 19: 1 – 10:
“And entering in, he walked through Jericho.
And behold, there was a man named Zacheus, who was the chief of the publicans, and he was rich.
And he sought to see Jesus who he was, and he could not for the crowd, because he was low of stature.
And running before, he climbed up into a sycamore tree, that he might see him; for he was to pass that way.
And when Jesus was come to the place, looking up, he saw him, and said to him: Zacheus, make haste and come down; for this day I must abide in thy house.
And he made haste and came down; and received him with joy.
And when all saw it, they murmured, saying, that he was gone to be a guest with a man that was a sinner.
But Zacheus standing, said to the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wronged any man of any thing, I restore him fourfold.
Jesus said to him: This day is salvation come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Why did Our Lord visit Zacheus? Because Our Lord already knew that the hard heart of Zacheus had been softened and Zacheus was ready to respond in a positive manner to Our Lord’s message of salvation through contrition for sin and reparation. Jorge Bergoglio’s false gospel effectively denies that certain sins are, in fact, sins and confirms sinners in their hard-heartedness. Whose “gospel” he is spreading should be obvious to us all, for without the softening of the hard heart, the recognition of the reality of sin, the repentance of, and reparation for, sin there can be no salvation. But isn’t that the goal of the false “gospel” – that as much of humanity as possible be dragged off to perdition?
I know. I don’t often watch the show the Office (or much TV) but I remember the episode where Michael is driving and following GPS and it tells him to take the next right turn but before the next road is a short little drive that goes into a lake. So he turns down the drive toward the lake and the passenger is yelling, Michael! This not the road! And Michael yells, the GPS says to turn right at the next turn!! And he drives into the lake. It reminds me of the hierarchy pushing VII as the Church runs off the edge due to VII.
Robert Sungenis made a good point once that, as Jesus stated, God allowed the Hebrews to divorce due to the hardness of their hearts. Not because God approved of divorce but because it was the punishment for the unfaithful, who would lead themselves into perdition.
Really good analogy. GPS into a chasm cause the GPS has been programmed by Chasm-ignramouses (or worse). I guess satnav is getting less thick, but how can anyone listen to it? They have so many voices now. I heard they had Brian Blessed which would be a kick-start in the morning.
Blessed is the bloke with the iron hands on his shoulders.
It’s all ensconced in the current occupant’s humility!
There’s a hell’s chasm if ever there was one. Who can fathom such a thing?
Good observations. The tactic of omission is the primary way that Francis uses to distort the faith by clever manipulation of inferences. You will see the bull in this indiction used to justify sin in general, not merely allow adulterers and sodomites to receive Holy Communion, which is only the first step towards completing the great apostasy. Then will come the one world religion and abomination of desolation.