From the moment the current Synod of Bishops commenced, Catholics the world over, including any number of bishops and cardinals, have been attempting to evaluate Pope Francis’ intentions by focusing almost exclusively on the debate concerning Holy Communion.
It occurs to me that one of the best ways to decipher the mind of the present pope and his desires for the Church moving forward, while keeping the activities of the Synod in their proper perspective, is to listen very carefully to what he had to say in a recent sermon given at Santa Marta; a venue wherein he often speaks his mind freely.
On Wednesday, October 14, as the Synod hall was still reverberating with the aftershocks of the earthquake created by the Letter of Thirteen, one of its highest profile signatories, George Cardinal Pell, stood and addressed the assembly.
He reminded his brother bishops that their “first episcopal task” is to teach; to “explain and defend the apostolic tradition of faith and morals … as interpreters of the great mystery of God’s love and forgiveness.”
Cardinal Pell then took direct aim at the Trojan Horse (more properly, Bergoglian) that was intentionally crafted to usher the Kasperian Proposal into the very heart of the Church; namely, license masquerading as “mercy.”
Too many have lost confidence in Jesus’ doctrines and doubt or deny that mercy is found in his hard moral teachings. The crucified Jesus was not afraid to confront society, and he was crucified for his pains, teaching his followers that life is a moral struggle that requires sacrifices, and his followers cannot always take the easy options.
Jesus was not afraid to confront society…
One can almost imagine Cardinal Pell looking directly at the “who am I to judge?” pope as these words were spoken, and even more so as he went on to say:
He [Jesus] did not tell the adulterous woman to continue in her good work but to repent and sin no more. The prodigal son acknowledged his sins before he returned home. While we have many theologians, we have one faith and one set of official doctrine.
Cardinal Pell could just as easily have said, “With all due respect, Holiness, your countless pleas for ‘random acts of kindness’ are a poor substitute for the call to conversion.”
The following morning, it became obvious that Pope Francis had taken notice.
In his sermon given at Santa Marta, the Bishop of Rome seemed to seize upon Cardinal Pell’s suggestion that the episcopate is called to act as “interpreters of the great mystery of God’s love,” saying:
One of the hardest things for all of us Christians to understand is the free gift of salvation in Christ”, because there have always been ‘doctors of the law’ who mislead by limiting the love of God to ‘small horizons’, when instead it is something ‘immense and boundless’.
Pope Francis then attempted to turn the tables on Cardinal Pell relative to his call to defend the “apostolic tradition of faith and morals,” otherwise known as doctrine.
As reported by Vatican Radio:
Where did St. Paul’s malaise [better translated, agitation] come from? Francis said the answer was that the Apostle “defended the doctrine, was a great defender of the doctrine, and the annoyance came from these people who did not tolerate the doctrine”. Which doctrine? “The gratuitousness of salvation”.
This is the same Pope Francis who rails against “those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine” (Evangelii Gaudium) and “exaggerated doctrinal security” (interview with Anthony Spadaro, S.J.), and now he proposes to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with St. Paul?
He can’t be serious.
In any case, that’s when things got all Protestant up in Santa Marta as Pope Francis launched into a good old fashioned “sola fide / once saved, always saved” rant:
Pope Francis [in reference to Romans 3:21-30] said that God “saved us gratuitously, and he saved all of us”. While there were groups who said: “No, he saves only that person, that man, that woman who does this, this, this and this … who performs these acts, who observes these commandments”. In this way, “that which is free, the love of God, according to these people whom Paul is speaking against”, ends up becoming “something we can obtain: ‘If I do this, God is obligated to give me salvation’. This is what Paul refers to as ‘salvation by works’”
As is his tendency, Pope Francis is twisting sacred Scripture to suit his own ends. Let us, however, be clear as to what the “Apostle to the gentiles” was actually saying.
St. Paul was “speaking against” those who failed to recognize the utter futility of the old law; continuing instead to behave as if adherence to its 613 commandments represents the pathway to salvation.
As he explained in his Epistle to the Ephesians, such persons deceive themselves as Our Blessed Lord “abolished in His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances” (cf Eph 2).
In other words, St. Paul could very well have been scolding any one of the post-conciliar popes, the Argentinian chief among them, who never seem to tire of kowtowing to the Jews, appeasing them with false assurances of salvation based upon the Old Covenant; despite their rejection of Jesus Christ.
Francis, not content to misappropriate the Scripture passage from Romans, went on to manipulate the teaching put forth in the Epistle of St. James wherein it is written, “faith without works is dead,” declaring:
“Perhaps we prefer not to understand it: we believe that the style of salvation in which ‘we do certain things and then we are saved’ is better’”. “Of course”, the Pope explained, “to do good, to do the things that Jesus tells us to do, is good and should be done”; but “the essence of salvation does not come from this. This is my response to the salvation that is free, that comes gratuitously from the love of God”.
In other words, Pope Francis is saying that even though we really ought to do what Jesus tells us, in the end, that’s not really necessary for salvation! As for the nature of “works” themselves, he is suggesting that those who simply “understand” and accept that God has already “saved us all” presumably just automatically do good.
Lest any among us still be so naïve as to imagine that the events unfolding at the Synod were not top of the pope’s mind as he spoke, he went on to leave little doubt:
In fact, the Pope remarked, these doctors of the law thought that you could only be saved by “observing all of the commandments”, while “those who did not do so were condemned”. In practice, Pope Francis said, with an evocative image, “they shortened the horizons of God as if the love of God were small, small, small, small, to the measure of each one of us”.
As if mentally fencing with the Synod’s opposition party (i.e., those who would dare to defend the Catholic faith), Francis offered a rebuttal in anticipation of their objections:
To those who might object and ask: “But father, are there not commandments?”, Francis replied: “Yes, there are! But there is one that Jesus says is basically a synthesis of all the commandments: love God and love thy neighbour”.Thanks to “this attitude of love, we are worthy of the gratuity of salvation, because love is free”.
Giving new meaning to the “Franciscan habit,” we once again see that this pope simply cannot help but twist sacred Scripture according to his own fancy; in this case, by boldly reducing what Our Blessed Lord identified as the “greatest commandment” (i.e., that which demands the conformity of one’s life to the Divine Law) to a mere “attitude.”
Note well that this affinity for sentiment over and against faithful adherence to the Church’s doctrines and disciplines is textbook modernism, just as Pope St. Pius X described it:
Religious formulas [pertaining to doctrine and pastoral practice], to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. (Pascendi 14)
So, what are we to conclude from all of this?
While it makes perfect sense for faithful Catholics to focus intently on the debate concerning Holy Communion for adulterers and active homosexuals, if we really want to decipher the present pontificate and its vision for the Church moving forward, we must first come to terms with the fact that Pope Francis isn’t one of us; rather, he is a modernist.
This is especially necessary for any prelate who wishes to defend the faith such as it is under attack at the Synod under Francis’ watchful eye.
In other words, while authentic Catholics naturally expect the pope to “safeguard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints” (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis), nothing could be further from Jorge Bergoglio’s mind.
As for the kinds of thoughts that really do occupy his modernist mind, Pope St. Pius X tells us that such men operate under the conviction:
In the religious sentiment one must recognise a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the very reality of God. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. (ibid.)
Doctrine, discipline, adherence to the commandments… These are but rational things to be surpassed; this is why Francis stresses the “attitude of love” in opposition to them.
The conclusions drawn from such thought should be clear:
What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? … And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. (ibid.)
As Pope Francis said, “God saved us gratuitously, and he saved all of us,” and all indications are that he imagines that the entire human family, pagans included, is among the “us” that has already been saved as a fait accompli, a notion that even the Protestants reject.
So, you see, for Pope Francis, the Synod debate about Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, those in homosexual unions and those who are cohabitating, is really only of secondary importance. Indeed, whether or not one is even Catholic is of little concern to him!
What really matters to Francis is that the discipline of the organization over which he presides, the Catholic Church, in no way stands as an obstacle between the “believer” and his ability to act on the “religious sentiment” that puts him in “immediate contact with the very reality of God” who has already “saved all of us.”
As for the reception of Holy Communion, to him this is simply an “experience” that all who but embrace the “attitude of love” deserve as much as anyone, and woe to those who would dare deny it to them.
This manner of thinking, in my estimation, is what makes Francis tick.
In his mind, he is in charge of a church that is but one religious expression among many, and he’ll be damned if it’s going to fail on his watch to take on the smell of the sheep and keep up with the signs of the times.
The value of the Synod, therefore, is simply this; it may just serve as a wake-up call for whatever faithful churchmen still remain; forcing them to view Pope Francis for what he truly is – a modernist – and by the grace of Almighty God, to act in the Church’s defense before he can do any more damage than he has already done.
The actual passage being reflected on….
Christ Took Our Punishment
But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.
People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time.
God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.
Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.
After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.
Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.
A more traditional translation of the passage being reflected upon…
3:21 But now, without the law, the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.
3:21 Nunc autem sine lege justitia Dei manifestata est: testificata a lege et prophetis.
3:22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction.
3:22 Justitia autem Dei per fidem Jesu Christi in omnes et super omnes qui credunt in eum: non enim est distinctio:
3:23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.
3:23 omnes enim peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei.
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
3:24 Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quæ est in Christo Jesu,
3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins,
3:25 quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius, ad ostensionem justitiæ suæ propter remissionem præcedentium delictorum
3:26 Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time: that he himself may be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ.
3:26 in sustentatione Dei, ad ostensionem justitiæ ejus in hoc tempore: ut sit ipse justus, et justificans eum, qui est ex fide Jesu Christi.
3:27 Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
3:27 Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? Factorum? Non: sed per legem fidei.
3:28 For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
3:28 Arbitramur enim justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.
3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? yes, of the Gentiles also.
3:29 An Judæorum Deus tantum? nonne et gentium? Immo et gentium:
3:30 For it is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith.
3:30 quoniam quidem unus est Deus, qui justificat circumcisionem ex fide, et præputium per fidem.
3:31 Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.
3:31 Legem ergo destruimus per fidem? Absit: sed legem statuimus.
This Synod seems to be heading in the direction many of us, including Louie easily predicted.
Recent news is that the Pope plans on becoming the Destroyer St. Francis prophesied in his plan of ‘Decentralization.’ Bringing down the role and authority of the Papacy as just another Bishop and giving local Bishops carte blanche to act ‘pastorally.’ He is washing his hands, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him.”
A schism that is not spoken. A unity that is separation. An anti-Pentecost. The Church must decentralize, while the secular governments of the world centralize for the coming of the Anti-Christ.
All this explosive news straight from the mouth of the Pope and crickets can be heard over at CMTV and other places. Are they still busy looking for a way to spin it? Are they just going to pretend it never happened? These next few months will determine whether I continue subscribing to CMTV, as if this doesn’t turn them around I don’t know what will.
Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t believe in the Papacy. He doesn’t like being called Pope (Bishop of Rome, please). He doesn’t know his job description as Vicar of Christ. He only wants to be “one of the guys”, except when being Pope gives him the authority and power for his own evil agenda. By the time he leaves (death, retire, resign, abdicate–take your pick), there won’t be any papacy left, The postconciliar “church” will blend in with all the other protestant sects with maybe just a little more fanfare–nothing more. Pope Francis may be sitting on the Throne of Peter, but he is no PETER, the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. Please, Dear Lord, send us a Pope worthy of this holy and exalted office. A Pope who is truly the Vicar of Christ on earth! The Holy Roman Catholic Church will be with us until the end of time—the gates of Hell will not prevail!!! This is our HOPE!
Bergoglio says: “perhaps we prefer not to understand it: we believe that the style of salvation in which ‘we do certain things and then we are saved’ is better”.
And yet Bergoglio himself implicitly encourages the approach of “doing certain things”. For example, when he publicly and officially teaches that “the Jewish people[‘s]…covenant with God has never been revoked” (Evangelii Gaudium, #247, echoing the Wojtylan Catechism, #121), he must surely be teaching that the old Jewish sacrifices (“doing certain things”) are still capable of procuring benefits.
Pope Francis speaks like a modernist but the dogma that is under attack when he speaks (“The gratuitousness of salvation”) is EENS, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, No Salvation Outside the Church, and this has been going on in earnest since the 1940’s.
Pope Pius XII allowed the dogma to be undermined, subsequent popes, through the mechanism of ecumenism took more active steps to water things down, and now, we should not be surprised that a Pope is actively moving to, at least de facto, kill it altogether.
Our Lady of Fatima said that “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.” Pope Francis does not live in Portugal.
If Bishop of Rome Bergoglio attended a Billy Graham Rally today, he would be the first one in the audience to approach the stage declaring that he has accepted Jesus Christ as “his personal Savior”. From that moment on, he would be assured of Heaven no matter how he lived his life. Not a bad deal!!! Bergoglio doesn’t know the difference between redemption and salvation. He may be a horrible Catholic, but he sure is a wonderful protestant!
Bergoglio does not believe in or value the Catholic Church, which is the ‘instrument of salvation’. This has been clear to me since the summer of 2013. He does not grasp the reality of divine grace nor does he understand that to encounter Christ most fully happens through the Catholic Mass and the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Surface sentimentality and feelings are a poor substitute for the real union with Christ we are offered through in the Catholic Faith. I am astounded at the faulty grasp of theology both of Bergoglio and of many in the synod as well. In fifth grade I could have held my ground with all of them as could have any well-instructed Catholic school child.
Where’s a fifth grader when you need one?
Bergoglio is playing with terms. What is love for our lord? Jesus said: ‘If you love me, keep my commandments.’ This simple sentence indicates that any dissociation between faith and works is false. It is so easy to say: ‘I love you Lord, I have faith in you’. For many, it will imply: ‘I love you on my terms, I will follow my (ill-formed) conscience, and doctrine is irrelevant’. The faithful Catholic follows commandments not because he is a slave of these commandments but because he loves our Lord. These commandments are the source of freedom, the path to objective Truth. Because of love for the Lord, the faithful can carry their cross and the burden is light.
The love of Bergoglio is a love of ignoring and condoning sins, it is not liberating, it is false love just like mercy without repentance is false mercy. His love appears to be love without a cross. Salvation of Bergoglio is salvation without a personal cross. Apparently, the cross is only the physical Cross of one Friday in history.
What is love for neighbor? It is charity in truth. Caritas in veritate. True love for neighbor cannot be dissociated from Truth, from the Incarnate Word. That is why the second commandment comes after the first. Please mister Bergoglio, define your terms. Be clear. Your love is sentimental nonsense, the nonsense of a man who should confront the world, convert the world and take up the cross.
By the way, this man is again judging the subjective disposition of those who believe the Church is the means for salvation. He appears to know that those faithful Catholics believe they are saved by their own merit and their own merit alone. No, the personal cross is united with the Cross of calvary of the Son of God who suffered without sin. We suffer but we are sinners and we absolutely need the mercy of our Lord. The papacy of Bergoglio is part of our cross and we should not run away.
Well said, Miss Jensen. The modernist heretics refute the fundamentals of Revelation (and natural reason). They do so on purpose, for their aim is to destroy the Faith. A 6 or 7 year old (the traditional age for reception of the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion), well-formed in the Faith, knows the modernist lies and is an enemy of the Faith.
He speaks an arbitrary, evil Gnosticism. To be used by its purveyors for their political and spiritual ends. It is used as a tool of control, of despotism, with no appeal to objective truths of Faith or morals.
It is not love but contempt for souls – seeking their debasement and separation from Our Lotd and Saviour – for eternity. It is the face of evil.
Our Blessed Lord is the Good Shepherd. We must be the good sheep. In the parable referred to herein, Our Lord elaborates in several ways- an analogy between Himself as the Invisible Head of the Church & ourselves as the sheep.
The Good Shepherd
The audio here is somewhat compromised bc the sermon is given within an outdoor mission. But it’s still clear enough.
“———echoing the Wojtylan Catechism—–” Yes —— and of course it’s what apostate Jorge is teaching.
‘Cardinal Pell’: When asked in 2009 if he believes that Vatican II contains teachings that all Catholics must embrace: “Yes, I think so…yes, yes, basically.…”
Watch the the Pell defender of the Novus Ordo oblique agree with Richard Dawkins:
If he does not confirm the Faith, if he pushes synodality, it will all be very clear and beyond debate. I would love to see Catherine of Siena take him on. But in his humbleness, he would probably call her a pharisee and have her evicted from Vatican City.
Saint Catherine would have had to have denounced the likes as apostates and looked to the few Bishops of the faith left to do the same. What would Saint Catherine have to say of the SSPX’s hand-shake with belial?
Well said once again Barbara Jensen. Many of the hierarchy who are now in positions of power are clearly seriously impoverished and confused when it comes knowing the Catholic Faith and who God is. How frightening this all is indeed.
I can barely stomach calling the havock and destruction that Bergoglio is causing, the actual “Papacy”. I agree that Bergoglio is our cross indeed and I really liked what you said. True love is sacraficial and has a cross. Bergoglio’s false sentimental ‘love’ and mercy has no cross. Therefor it is a false love and a false mercy. I couldn’t agree with you more. Today’s reading by the way happens to be on Epistle Jas. 2:12-17 What shall it profit, my brethen, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Bergoglio has no works. He is not doing his job.
I have also come to beleive that Bergoglio has no Catholic faith also.
I hear you, Johnno, but let’s look at this another way. I just listened to a talk by Father Rodriguez in the set of talks from The 4th Annual Catholic Identity Conference. Louie spoke there too, as did John Vennari, Michael Matt, Pat Archbold, Chris Ferrara and some other priests along with Father Rodriguez.
Early in his talk Father Rodriguez gave an impassioned plea for all traditional Catholics (Catholics!) to stop the in-fighting and agonizing over details of our differences.
What is our first goal? To worship, praise and thank The Blessed Trinity. Second goal is to save our own souls, and to work and pray for the conversion of sinners.
Are these not the goals of ALL of us? I fear that we (I) spend a lot of energy fighting others who have different ideas, but the same goals.
Father Rodriguez mentioned that there were representatives of several ‘schools’ of thought and practice at the conference. Himself as a diocesan priest loyal even to a bad bishop, an FSSP priest, and a SSPX priest, laymen too, each with a different message: but the same GOAL.
I guess my plea for us here is to stop fighting each other – and that includes fighting CM. All our energies must go to establishing a family, a Catholic family, to fight the coming persecutions.
I am NOT advocating gradualism where we welcome every wacko that comes down the pike, traditionalist or not and hope we all get to speak the same words. What I am saying is that we focus on the goal instead of our differences, even if they SEEM insurmountable.
Keep the Faith.
Bergoglio’s expanding girth reveals what he thinks of the cross.
You may be right, de Maria, but have you noticed that John Paul II, and Benedict, have both been completely ignored – even contradicted after only 30+ years? We know they were modernists, perhaps in more conservative cloaks, but now all gloves are off – Francis is preaching pure Modernism.
Yes, John314 you are right, and perhaps we can go back even further than that: what they deny is the Divinity of Jesus. To echo something I heard recently, Modernists believe there are two Jesuses. The first in the historical Jesus – a wise, pious Jew who taught some nice things, the second is the Jesus of faith who we encounter in our hearts – the relationship with this ‘heart’ Jesus is what Francis wants everyone on the planet to have.
So loss of the belief that Jesus was One with the Father, yet joined with man in the hypostatic union is the first step to all the rest.
Please entitle this prose poem, ‘Heresiarch’.
Well said, Barbara Jensen. If we rely on our feelings in matters of Faith, where will we be when we don’t ‘feel like it’? Are we foolish enough to think that a good priest gets up early every morning to pray his Divine Office, then vests for Holy Mass and says the same prayers over and over and over for decades because he likes it? He does it because he ‘likes’ GOD.
I agree that we must be good sheep. The pope, whoever he is, must never do anything that would cause scandal in the sheep – I mean if we are to obey him he must act in a way that makes it possible to obey him. Francis makes it impossible for us to obey.
This is a horrible lack of true charity for his flock.
Wasn’t that embarrassing? Sad that we have to rely on the Pells of the world but they are going to be useful to us in the very near future. They will offer us a life raft – they will very soon see that they too must embrace the fullness of Catholic Faith – and I’m sure they will.
Let’s let the smoke clear a bit and have patience and charity for Pell and the others who are at least trying to save something of the Faith.
The Covenant of the Blood of Christ fulfils the Mosaic covenant.
“Stay close to your friends. Stay closer to your enemies.”
I don’t believe the Pope is a Modernist as much as he is a pragmatist. He is driving relentlessly toward the ultimate goal of one world religion. This has been the motive for everything that has happened since Vatican II. First the Liturgy had to be completely Protestantized. Then the doctrine behind the Liturgy had to be bent and twisted in order to make it acceptable to Protestants. Now the rules regarding marriage have to be changed in order to be acceptable to the Orthodox, as well as “decentralizing” the Papacy, ultimately conforming to the Orthodox Churches’ views on the “Bishop of Rome.” In order to have one world religion, the “religion” can’t really profess any strictly held doctrines. Whatever anyone believes is okay (unless you are a “fundamentalist” aka “ideologue” and actually believe something).
tufty, you have just described Modernism. Francis’ pragmatism comes in when he uses certain occasions and events to forward his goal, or when he allows others to say what he thinks. Pragmatists don’t come right out and say what they want, because they know the direct approach alerts people to the danger.
Sorry Barbara, can’t be bothered.
“Take Him yourselves and crucify Him.” Christ is being crucified again; this time it is His Mystical Body. Johnno: watch/read the free stuff at CMTV (I still do…) However, I threw all my financial support to Harvesting the Fruit, SSPX, the Remnant and Catholic Family News.
“If only all Catholic traditionalists understood, believed and implemented two basic doctrines of the Catholic Church, all our infighting would cease. These two basic Catholic doctrines are:
1. A heretic cannot be Pope.
2. The Catholic Church cannot teach error, or anything harmful to the salvation of souls.
If all Catholics could only accept those two simple Catholic truths, then VII and the conciliar anti-popes would disappear from their deliberations in a puff of satanic smoke.
The SSPX would sever all communion with the usurpers in Rome and in the Holy Mass. We would have a solid, Catholic, unified remnant, with an already significant infrastructure, for resisting the apostates and saving many souls.
Forget everything else. Just meditate on those two simple, Catholic certainties for a few minutes.” Peter Lamb
Cardinal Jose Luis Lacunza Maestrojuan actually said that the Church should be more like Moses and allow divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts.
This extraordinary statement was, of course aimed directly at Our Blessed Lord and was totally blasphemous. The Cardinal was saying that Our Lord lacked mercy and made a mistake in prohibiting divorce.
When we have reached the stage that a Cardinal of the Catholic Church could publically profess such blasphemy and NOT BE IMMEDIATELY JUMPED UPON BY HIS COLLEAGUES AND BY THE POPE – then we are in deep, deep trouble.
What are we to think of Bishop Fellay’s commentary on the 3rd Secret of Fatima and it’s connection to Apoc XIII? He mentions the rise of Antichrist in relation to this chapter but what about it’s reference to the false prophet, who looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon? Surely the language of the modernist fits this description perfectly. If Lucifer was to have his own pope in the center surely this would fulfill La Salette “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”. Remember that Fr Malachi Martin said this would be all done within 20 years (speaking in 1997 I believe).
Where there is an anti-pope a true pope is absent – exiled or there is a long interregnum. Where there is a counterfeit church, the true Church is in exile. There never ever will be a true successor of Peter Who is antichristian, or a true Bride who adulterates herself with the world and his wife.
How disappointing to see that Traditionalmass.org fully endorses NFP through the following article by Father Anthony Cekada. Of course this doesn’t surprise me seeing they insist that the last true Pope ended with Pope Pius XII. And just as I thought. They are defending it because it appears from this 1998 article, that they have been counseling their parishioners in the confessional that NFP is not sinful when it wishes to plan to separate procretion from unity during conjugal relations in order to avoid having children. I really am a fan of Cekada’s book “Work of Human Hands” but I have to say that it just kills me to see him drinking the coolaid of NFP. I most definitly have to email Father Cekada with all my references to the teachings on the hierarchy of the purposes of marriage from Scripture, the Church Fathers and the magisterium that doesn’t contradict doctrine. I am frankly surprised how easily Cekada brushes off contraception as to be only the area of a very complex moral theology that is to be left up to his rational of why he thinks one can separate procreation from unity during conjugal relations in order to avoid having children. No references given whatsoever as he tries to reasure his disgruntled parishioner who was upset to read some article from the Remanent attacking the sinfulness of NFP. I am hopping that Father Cekada has come around to see how he has been duped. This article was written in 1998. Maybe I should give him a chance that he has come to see the light in the last 17 years.
One thing that I see as hopeful though, is that the so called Trads and conservative Catholics appear to be recently waking up to the sham of NFP. I see the tide shifting with the SSPX, CMTV, CFN, and the Remanent. Some of the more sincere but misled NFP promoters are finally coming to admit and understand the errors that clearly contradict the teachings on the hierarchy of purposes of marriage and conjugal intercourse and purity from the false teachings inherent in NFP?
My hopes for some of these sedevacantists is that they too have come around to admitting their error in supporting the heresy of NFP?
Here is the link to Anthony Cekada’s article defending NFP. http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=6&catname=9
Here is the link to some of the many teachings from the Catholic Church against NFP.
The Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”
Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” (Tobias 6:16-17)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter 17.–What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)
St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].” (Book 1, Section 20; 40)
St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, A.D. 396: “Since, therefore, the institution of marriage exists for the sake of generation, for this reason did our forebears enter into the union of wedlock and lawfully take to themselves their wives, only because of the duty to beget children.” (Book II, Chapter 12)
Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)
Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.–Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)
St. Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The Penitential of Finnian #46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children, as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’ that is, in unity of the flesh for the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh.”
St. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep yourself from relations of pleasure.”
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but only for the birth of children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XVIII.–The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics, and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)
St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.”
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children; but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions, therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.” (Chapter LXI.–Of the Passions)
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.” (Chapter LXII.–Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: “Put away your fornications.” [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (The Paedagogusor The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, “Pastoral Care,” Part 3, Chapter 27, in “Ancient Christian Writers,” No. 11, pp. 188-189)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.” (Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love, 17; Philokalia 2:67-68)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)
St. John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better. “Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)
Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a wife.”
Venerable Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers prayers and meditations, p. 362)
I have other quotes from Pope John Paul II explaining the teachings of the hierarchy of marriage before he became Pope and I have some other quotes from the Acta Apostolicae Sedis from the 1950s that answers the question put to Rome “Wether one can separate procreation from unity or at least put them at the same level of value. The answer was a clear NO.
The apparent pope speaks this every day.
The Darlings at “The Warehouse In Detroit” have spent their time spinning everything, especially in regards to the Romanian Greek Catholic Female Doctor, who told Pope Francis to his face that it is SIN & Not Ecological Conversion & Communion to the Divorced Remarried People that is the Big Problem here, with CMTV reporting this as merely addressing the Assembled Bishops.
In the case of 13 Cardinals signing the Letter in regards to a lack of Clarity in regards to the Synod Rules, the Detroit Warehouse Studio Group came up with a report that a few Cardinals backed down from The Pope.
This is Papalotry and hence CMTV cannot handle the truth that Pope Francis at best is a Material Heretic. Then again, the Big Cheque Writers would shut down that Channel if it reported actual facts.
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Anastasia, Pius XII concurred with Trent, and this article – http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=6&catname=9 – keeps the one voice of the faith.
God only knows your motives are concerning Pius XII and the midwives speech.
Peter Lamb: “Dear Anastasia,
By remarkable coincidence some friends and I were discussing this very subject and particularly Pope Pius XII’s Letter to Midwives when you posted your comment on this subject.
My take on Casti Connubi is that contraception is condemned – full stop. I quote Pope Pius XII in his Letter:
“Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.”
Yet, further in his letter Pope Pius XII clearly and unambiguously states that NFP is permissible under certain circumstances:
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.”
Based on this I agreed with your recent statement that Pope Pius XII opened the door to NFP.
Whether his letter is to be considered infallible, or not, I am not sure. I would depend on the judgement of a canon lawyer. In my ignorance, I would think it was not infallible, because a private letter is written privately. This must be the crux of the matter. The content of a private letter may become widely known, even to the whole world, but it remains privately written. In other words, Pope Pius XII was expressing his private opinion to a group of people, but he was not teaching to the Universal Church in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ. I know it seems a fine point, but it is not. As I said, I may be wrong.
Fr. Cekada, in his article states that:
Deliberately to limit marital relations to sterile periods to avoid conception is morally lawful in actual practice, provided the requisite conditions are met.”
However he also clearly states that:
“The issues involved with NFP were not fully discussed by pre-Vatican II theologians.”
“Neither was the gravity of the unjustifiable use of periodic abstinence.”
It seems to me that the take home message is that the question of NFP is still under theological discussion and has not been authoritatively decided in detail by the proper authorities yet. There is currently no proper authority, so we will just have to wait for the arrival of a true Pope to clarify and settle the matter.
You have gathered excellent quotes, but remember that the Fathers had no idea of the physiology of conception that we know today. They would have been oblivious of NFP. 🙂
Your idea to email Fr. Cekada for a possible update is great. I’m sure many would be interested.
This post reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with someone who wasn’t aware of St. Malachi’s papal prophecies in relation to Bergoglio. I’m sure everyone realizes that Malachi said the last pope would be “Peter of Rome.” That’s exactly what Bergoglio calls himself: the successor of Peter as “Bishop of Rome.” Maybe he will be the last “pope” of New Church and that new religion will have regional synods acting autonomously. This would have seemed absurd even a year ago. Now, I fear, it is inevitable.
But that really won’t be the Church. The few faithful that Benedict predicted will go on, all the way to eternal glory. I am so sad for the millions who just won’t see any of this.
But this papacy is already over. I have ever so reluctantly come to the conclusion that Bergoglio is no longer pope…because he is no longer Catholic.
If you do email Fr. Cekada, do not be surprised if he calls you a ‘protestant’ or some other derogatory name. Father does not like being corrected. I wrote a long letter to him many years ago about another doctrine of our Faith. and his reply was like a punch in the stomach. I still have his handwritten note.
God bless you.
Dear Salvamur and Peter Lamb,
I am having trouble wrapping my head around how you understand exactly what NFP teaches. There are three areas of NFP that are taught. 1.Periodic abstinence, i.e. recourse exclusively to the infertile period in order to avoid having children, 2. complete abstinence, and 3.when is the optimall time to have conjugal relations in order to maximize your chances to conceive.
The number one teaching of theirs is having recourse to the infertile period exclusively in order to avoid having children. This is the grave sin and grave scandal against purity and chastity that they are teaching and promoting. I really don’t see how knowing that there are times when conception is greatly reduced would be a huge game changer for the Church Fathers. Come on. How many times have I said that the planning, in thought word and to deed to separate procreation from sex during conjugal realations is the sin. Just because they are less fertile during these times doesn’t make their sin in their thoughts and acts suddenly nonexistant.
How is it that a sedevacantist can ingnore all the qotes from Scripture, the Church Fathers and the magisterium prior to Vatican II and tell me that the question of separating sex from procreation, NFP, was never under theological discussion and was never authoritively decided. What Scripture, The Church Fathers and the magisterium were discussing and opposing was precisely what NFP is now promoting.
It doesn’t matter a hoot wether the Church Fathers were aware of a fertile and infertile time. It is the act of separating in thought word and deed sex from procreation that is the sin and Scripture, the Church Fathers have clearly taught this.
Onan was put to immediate death for separating sex from procreation while benefitting from the sex act. In another instance in the Bible where a man refused to conceive a child with his deceased brothers wife through the method of complete abstinence was not put to immediate death but was publicly humiliated instead for his lack of generosity and selfishness. This is to show that to completely abstain can be sinful at times when done for selfish reasons. However to separate in act, word or deed sex from procreation during the sex act in order to avoid having children while benefitting from the other effects of sex is a grave sin indeed. So grave that it warranted death.
Hang on just a minute. Who says people in ancient times did not know about fertile and infertile periods? Boy, talk about modern people thinking they invented everything. Men and women have been observing their bodies for a very long time and there is not much they could not observe. They may not have had the technology, or the correct terms for what they knew, but they sure knew it. In fact I’d say that they were probably more in tune with their bodies than we are, even with all the technical noise we have now.
NFP is permitted in very rare cases – problem is that with our fertile minds (pardon the pun) we can think up lots of them and convince ourselves they are grave. NFP used as contraception is always mortally sinful.
As long as people have been marrying and having children, people have known that one could not become pregnant for most of one’s menstrual cycle but only for some days about and a bit beyond mid-cycle. It’s called nature – manifest nature.
This error is fundamental to so much of the collapse of morals, marriage and family.
What is permissible is the avoidance of conjugal relations generally for the purposes of avoiding conception due to grave reasons. So-called “NFP” is a whole system for generally planning whether or when to conceive throughout the wife’s fertile life – something that subverts the meaning and purpose of marriage and marital relations.
I couldn’t agree with you more Linda. This is why this nasty, nasty teaching on separating procreation from unity has got to be destroyed in it’s track. I will never stop beating this drum.
Dear Lake Erie,
Thanks for the warning. Father Cekada ‘s response to you doesn’t surprise me at all. As much as I value and admire what most of the seds have to say at times, they can be on the other hand the types who have the greatest difficulty at accepting correction.