Ask the wrong question, and it’s all but guaranteed that you’ll receive the wrong answer.
Case in point: Synod 2015.
Most Catholic and secular media outlets approached the recently concluded Synod of Bishops with an apparent focus on obtaining an answer to the question:
Will the Synod, in some appreciable measure, create an opening for the Kasperian Proposal to take hold in the life of the Church?
Now that it has concluded its work, that question still seems to be driving most of the media’s reporting.
The problem is, however, that’s the wrong question.
For some time now, it has appeared obvious (to me anyway) that the right question to ask relative to the possibility of Rome approving (tacitly or otherwise) of an initiative to openly invite the civilly divorced and remarried, those who are cohabitating, and even those in active homosexual relationships to receive Holy Communion (apart from a remedy of their situation), is more properly this:
How will Pope Francis go about seeing to it that the so-called “Kasperian Proposal” – better understood as the Bergoglian Offensive – does indeed take hold in the life of the Church?
So, what’s the difference between the two questions posed?
The former places far too much stress on the Synod relative to how the so-called “hot button” issues will be treated moving forward.
More importantly still, it implicitly fails to take into account the fact that “the buck,” as the colloquialism states, stops with the pope, and the desire to turn the Communion line into a cattle call for public sinners belongs first and foremost to Jorge Bergoglio – the Generalissimo of the revolution to whom Walter Kasper has simply provided a battle plan; let’s call it “Operation Mercy.”
As for the plan itself, we were informed long ago (on February 21, 2014 to be exact) by Pope Francis himself, in no uncertain terms precisely what he thinks of Cardinal Kasper’s nefarious notions.
As readers may recall, on the very day after the proposals put forth by the “pope’s theologian” created a firestorm at the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals, Pope Francis stepped forward to express his own passionate support for Kasper’s ideas; calling them an example of “profound and serene theology … done on one’s knees.”
This, however, was not the first time that Pope Francis hinted at the degree to which he and Cardinal Kasper are simpatico with respect to his convoluted concept of “mercy” as outlined in his book by the same name.
During his very first Angelus Address, Pope Francis informed the world that he was reading Cardinal Kasper’s book; making it perfectly clear that he and the German heresiarch are of like mind, saying:
In these days, I have been able to read a book by a cardinal—Cardinal Kasper, a talented theologian, a good theologian—on mercy. And it did me such good, that book, but don’t think that I’m publicizing the books of my cardinals. That is not the case! But it did me such good, so much good… Cardinal Kasper said that hearing the word mercy changes everything.
Don’t think that I’m publicizing the books of my cardinals … that is not the case!
Looking back, can there be any question whatsoever that this proclamation falls squarely into the category of he who proteseth too much?
Speaking of which…
Cardinal Kasper, when interviewed by Commonweal Magazine about the contents of his book in May 2014, some three months after Pope Francis heaped effusive praise upon his “profound and serene theology” before the Consistory of Cardinals, said:
There are those who believe the church is for the pure. They forget that the church is also a church of sinners … I have the impression that this is very important for Pope Francis. He does not like the people in the church who are only condemning others … This is also a problem when it comes to the question of Communion for divorced and remarried people, which is now under consideration in preparation for the Synod of Bishops this autumn.
I have the impression that this is very important for Pope Francis…
Who does Kasper think he’s kidding; pretending not to have intimate knowledge of the Generalissimo’s opinion?
These people have no shame!
In any case, technically speaking, it is true that Pope Francis wasn’t publicizing Kasper’s book during his inaugural Angelus address; rather, he was very deliberately floating a trial balloon in order to see how the world might react to his support for the German cardinal’s heretical ideas.
Apparently, reaction to this veritable imprimatur being placed on Cardinal Kasper’s book by the pope’s own hand offered encouragement enough for releasing trial balloon number two; one that floated a more detailed hint at the Bergoglian agenda.
Just about a month later, a rumor began to circulate throughout Catholic media suggesting that the Holy See was working on a document meant to address the topic of Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried; with the implication being that a change was forthcoming.
It is perhaps hindsight at this point indeed, but who among us is so naïve as to doubt that this rumor was started with deliberate intent from within the pope’s own circle; all with an eye toward gauging the Church’s readiness for accepting his intention to push forward an initiative that would effectively open up Holy Communion to all comers?
Toward the end of April 2013, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a statement denying the rumor, but by then its purpose had apparently already been fulfilled; namely, to ascertain just how steep a hill remained to be climbed in order to overtake the enemy; namely, churchmen whom Francis would later describe as those who risk causing “the edifice of the Church’s moral teaching to become a house of cards” due to their insistence upon “certain doctrinal or moral points based on specific ideological options” (cf Evangelii Gaudium 39)
Remember, this reconnaissance effort in preparation for the Bergoglian Offensive began less than a week into the Franciscan pontificate, and it culminated with a formal, albeit stealth, declaration of war some seven months later.
On October 8, 2013, Pope Francis announced his intention to convene an Extraordinary Synod; just the third such event since the Synod of Bishops was instituted in 1965.
While “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” was named as the overall theme, the Vatican Press Office never made any bones about the fact that access to Holy Communion for those from whom it has been traditionally (even if mostly in theory and not in practice) withheld was truly the main issue.
From where did an “extraordinary” need to address this matter come?
For one place, Buenos Aries, where as Cardinal Archbishop, Jorge Bergoglio reportedly encouraged his priests “to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married.”
Can any reasonable observer fail to conclude that Jorge Bergoglio brought with him to the conclave a deep seated desire to see the scandalous practices that he promoted in Beunos Aries adopted throughout the Universal Church?
Indeed, this desire may very well be one of the primary reasons why the so-called “mafia club” of prelates that conspired to undermine the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI (as described by Cardinal Danneels in his recently published authorized biography) wanted to see Jorge Bergoglio elevated to the papacy.
Oh, and by the way; among the “made men” of said club was one Cardinal Walter Kasper.
With all of this said, what then are we to make of Synod 2015, and what might we expect moving forward?
Even though it is important to recognize how deeply this pope believes that the constitution of the Church as established by Christ is outdated and must be converted to a more “synodal” system of governance, it’s also crucial to understand that he’s entirely comfortable, when push comes to shove, with playing the role of the dictator if such should become necessary in order to get what he wants.
He has proven as much any number of times, not the least of which being during Extraordinary Synod 2014 when he forced into publication, in the name of the Synod, scandalous statements that failed to acquire the body’s requisite consensus.
Certainly, Pope Francis would have preferred for a majority of the Fathers to fall in line behind the Kapserian proposal whole and entire, and while he did little conceal his bitterness over their failure to do so, the Synod itself has ever been but one small part of a much larger agenda.
Its real value in moving the Bergoglian Offensive forward, as I see it, twofold.
First and most obvious is the “crack in the door” to be found in the Synod’s final relatio under the heading, “Discernment and Integration,” as described by Professor Roberto De Mattei:
The Relatio doesn’t affirm the right for the divorced and remarried to receive Communion (and thus the right to adultery), but it denies the Church, de facto, the right to publically define as adulterous, the condition of the divorced and remarried, leaving the responsibility for evaluation [of this] to the conscience of the pastors and the divorced and remarried themselves. Taking up again the language of Dignitatis Humanae, it is not about an “affirmative” right to adultery, but a “negative” right of not being prevented from exercising it, in other words, of a right to “immunity from any coercion in moral matters”. Just as in Dignitatis Humanae, the fundamental distinction between the “internal forum”, regarding the eternal salvation of individual believers, and the “external forum”, related to the public good of the community of believers, is cancelled.
What an excellent observation; one that brings into focus the degree to which one should expect Jorge Bergoglio – a man who lives not by a sensus Catholicus, but rather what we might call a sensus concilius – will leverage the Synod’s outcome to further his agenda.
More specifically, as I wrote last month with respect to Pope Francis’ reform of the annulment process, his adversaries were thereby put on notice that this pope intends to get what he wants:
In short, this motu proprio represents the formal beginning of that process whereby the indissolubility of marriage will be undermined in a way that allows the “reformers” to claim adherence to tradition, even as they set in motion its undoing.
I suggested that it did so by placing power in the hands of men like Cardinal Reinhard Marx of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, who has made no bones about his intent with respect to opening pathways to Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried.
In his article, Professor De Mattei lays it out in more detail; further connecting the dots between the call for “discernment and integration” made in the final relatio, and Pope Francis’ desire “to promote a sound decentralization” of Church governance in such way as to encourage “local Bishops in the discernment of issues which arise in their territory” (cf Evangelii Gaudium 16) relative to his recent annulment reforms:
The Relatio finalis, integrates well, in this respect, with Pope Francis’ two Motu Proprio [with respect to the reform of canonical procedure for the annulment of marriage] … The conferring of the diocesan bishop’s faculty, as sole judge, to direct a short process with discretion, and arrive at a sentence, is the same as conferring the bishop’s faculty in the discernment of the moral condition of the divorced and remarried. If a local bishop retains that the path of spiritual growth and an in depth analysis of a person who is living in a new union is completed, this person will be able to receive Holy Communion.
My sense going into this Synod has long been that the end result will include a move to defer to the various national bishops conferences in deciding who is, and who is not, openly invited to Holy Communion, and I still suspect that they will be invited to play a role.
Specifically, look for Pope Francis to encourage them, as he did in his motu proprio reforming the annulment process, to exhibit “apostolic eagerness to reach the lost faithful … strongly aware of their duty to share in the aforementioned conversion, and fully respect the right of the bishops to organize the judicial power in their own particular Churches.”
In other words, surely he recognizes the benefit of episcopal peer pressure in places where the national conferences tend toward liberalism (i.e, the overwhelming majority of them) and can therefore be expected to leverage it.
At this point, while it would seem that Pope Francis is pleased to encourage local bishops to individually “discern” who is able to receive Holy Communion, rest assured he will not be content to let the matter end there in places where a “rigorist” bishop might deny Holy Communion (at least in principle) to unrepentant public sinners.
In these cases, it will be necessary to establish a sort of “appeals” process similar to that which has been put in place for the reformed annulment process; one that includes recourse to the Ordinary of the Metropolitan See.
As I wrote with respect to annulments, this would mean that decisions rendered, for example, in the Diocese of Peoria under Bishop Jenky (a so-called “conservative”), would be subject to being overturned by the Metropolitan See of the Archdiocese of Chicago under Archbishop Blaise Cupich.
How Pope Francis will do all of this remains to be seen, but issuing a motu proprio would seem to be the boldest way; so bold, in fact, that I tend to doubt that he will, even as I wouldn’t rule it out entirely.
In any case, if all of this is true, one of the major tasks remaining in bringing the Bergoglian Offensive to fruition is to ensure that as many dioceses as possible, especially the Metropolitan Sees (not to mention key positions of power within the Roman Curia), are overseen by men cut from “Franciscan” cloth.
And therein lies the other noteworthy contribution to the Offensive made by the events of Synod 2015.
As I wrote more than one year ago:
It may very well be that the interventions given at the Extraordinary Synod, and the reactions of bishops worldwide thereto, is going to serve as the mechanism by which Pope Francis will separate the sheep from the goats, such as he sees them, in the year to come. In other words, he will use what he has learned in order to further identify those in the episcopate and the College of Cardinals who do not share his most merciful agenda…
The same, I suspect, is true of Synod 2015.
This being the case, men like Cardinal Pell and the other twelve signatories of the Letter of Thirteen may want to begin consolidating their belongings sooner rather than later.
Synod in perspective
Far from being “merciful,” allowing communion to the divorced and re-“married” makes a mockery of ALL Catholic marriages. In effect, it dissolves entirely the Sacrament of Matrimony.
This mockery has been going on for 50 years, and getting worse with each passing decade. What this heretic wants is not anything different than vatican 2 ever wanted….its just the most recent debasement. Bogus annulments (and THAT is the actual problem…not this other nonsense about receiving communion once you get a BS “annulment”) have been going on for years….they (the drive-thru anullments) were always a mockery of the sacrament. Im not quite sure why it took bergoglio’s shenanigans to see this. For decades these fake annulments never were that big a deal…but NOW that adulterers might be able to receive without that JOKE of a vatican 2 document….NOW we are up in arms. It would be funny if it werent so pathetic.
My sentiments exactly!
Papam Bergoglio & Kasper both Know The Catholic Faith & They Utterly DESPISE It.
ON an aside, the Poles say that God might not be swift, but He is just.
“he was very deliberately floating a trial balloon in order to see how the world might react to his support for the German cardinal’s heretical ideas.”
Great point, Louie. I think it would be very helpful if a credible journalist like Antonio Socci would go down to Argentina and investigate if what a priest (supporter of Francis) said is true. He was saying giving communion to public adulterers or anyone was never an issue at all under Borgolio as Archbishop. If that is true he went further than Marx, Kasper etc. they are only helping Francis to implement what he did in Argentina Church wide. So great article, Louis, the spotlight should be on Francis not Kasper or Marx etc. they are only the foot soldiers for the evil general.
The conciliar Church never has REALLY cared about giving communion to those living in sin or to non-Catholics.
Cardinal Ratzinger set a prime example during the funeral mass of Pope “St” JP II “The Great” giving communion to the heretic “Br” Schutz of the syncretist Taize community, who curiously enough was murdered soon after the event.
This is because the conciliarists believe that essentially all Protestants are members of the amorphous “Church of Christ” (so called) and hence are able to receive communion at the discretion of the local pastor just like any ordinary catholic.
The point is this – the conciliarist essentially doesn’t make a distinction between mortal and venial sin (just like the proddies), nor do they make a distinction between heretics and Catholics. So in a certain manner all this business about giving communion to adulterers was really settled a fairly long time ago in their favour by conciliarists like Card Ratzinger. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is merely reaching the conciliarist revolution to its logical conclusion – sin is always a fuzzy concept, with no hard rules between right and wrong, and at any rate the conscience is always prime for deciding what is right and wrong (Bergoglio being a pure subjectivist).
This is all so evil. This wicked distorted doctrine that passes of as “Catholicism” will be used by thousands of priests to give a free pass in the confessional to adulterers who have abandoned their faithful spouses to get together with another man/woman they lust after on the hypocritical farcical pretense that their “conscience” tells them their first marriage was “invalid” and that they are “really” “married” to the the man/woman they are currently lusting after (reminds anyone of Henry VIII??). How’s THAT for mercy on the abandoned spouses??
Bergoglio’s “Church” is a sham and a farce.
Meanwhile useful idiot Mr Voris is literally claiming that the final relatio doesn’t give a free pass to adulterers in the communion rail merely because it doesn’t have the specific phrase “adulterers can now receive communion”!! Did this man receive some sort of traumatic brain injury recently that has turned his cognitive abilities into mush? I mean, you don’t even need to be a Catholic to realize what’s staring at you right in front of your eyes!
An Argentinian priest who visited Bergoglio about a year ago or so, I believe it was shortly before the Sin-Nod of ’14, asked him about giving communion to adulterers and Bergoglio replied in the affirmative: “go forward”. There was a clip about this on youtube from Argentinian TV with the Argentinian priest being interviewed, unfortunately the clip didn’t gather a lot of attention on social media – but to those who saw it, it was further rock solid proof (hardly more was needed after Bergoglio’s lavish “theology on one’s knees” praise of Kasper) of what was coming ahead.
Hopefully Our Lord will deliver us before PF can do something that will cause irreparable harm to the Church and souls. It is my daily prayer.
At the same time, if he does something off the wall. We will then have to question his ability to reign. It will require a reexamination of what the saints and theologians write about a pope committing heresy or teach falsehood as the truth.
This is not the time to run around like chickens with no head. It is the time to learn the truth more clearly and fortify our spiritual lives, because we are going to need every grace we can gain through God’s mercy.
To put recent events in perspective, consider what has happened since the Synod assembled in 2008. As I wrote recently, the working document for that assembly includes this statement (at #15):
“[I]nerrancy [of Sacred Scripture] applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11)”.
At the conclusion of that assembly, Fr. Brian Harrison commented as follows (emphasis added):
“[B]y declining to endorse section 15(c) of the [document], these world representatives of the Successors of the Apostles have clearly decided, as a group, to stop short of eating the forbidden fruit…. [T]hat is certainly a cause for heartfelt thanks to the Holy Spirit, Mary, Mother of the Church, and St. Michael the Archangel“.
As I also mentioned, however, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has now published (2014) a document on the inspiration and truth of Scripture, which includes the following claim, as reported by an Italian commentator:
“[I]n the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts“.
Since 2013, we also have a papal claimant who says, “[R]ather than a multiplication, [the miracle of the loaves and fishes] is a sharing” (June 2nd, 2013).
If this is what has happened to the inerrancy of Scripture since the Synod “handled it” in 2008, imagine where we will be on the hot-button issues of this year’s assembly by 2022.
Good comment. If we look to Henry VIII and England under Elizabeth I as examples of what might happen, we’re looking at open persecution within a generation. Farfetched?
Circle the wagons, find a decent parish, keep your family close, collect good Catholic books, learn to live lean and as off the grid as you can. Prepare for the worst and be pleasantly surprised if nice things come instead.
Be careful what you pray for. God usually sends a universal chastisement before things can be restored – that means the innocent will suffer greatly along with the guilty. The Old Testament is full of the Jews turning away from God, Him punishing their lack of love and trust for Him, and then He presides over a restoration.
This is a great example of the gradualism practiced by Francis and his evil trolls. They know truth must be chipped away, piece by piece. There are so many examples like you have noted, where most people miss what’s happening.
“Far-fetched”? Not at all. In fact, I would be greatly surprised if open persecution doesn’t arrive at some juncture quite possibly within my own lifetime (middle aged man). In fact, I’m surprised they’re not rounding up faithful catholics yet. Perhaps the powers-that-shouldn’t be are hoping that Bergoglio and co. will finish killing off the Church before they have to go ahead with the unpleasant task (and in this effeminate age, who wants such a “dirty” job?).
The parallels between the schism of the Conciliar church and the Anglican schism are striking. Henry VIII separated from Rome over one single issue – his desire to satisfy his carnal desires over his lust for a woman. Likewise – modern effeminate clerics of the Conciliar Church have no desire to sacrifice their flesh in order to follow the true gospel of Christ.
Our Lady warned us, “The sins that carry most sins to hell are the sins of the flesh”. And it is precisely such sins that the conciliarists have no intention of admonishing Catholics against.
The conciliarists are dragging numerous souls to hell. It is only those who are willing to sacrifice their flesh on the wood of the cross (single and married corresponding to their state of life) that will whether out the storm of the apostasy.
Bergoglio didn’t do something “off the wall” with the Sin-Nod (and with the new “divorce-lment” procedures) – basically destroying the entire face of the Church on sexual morality and doctrine on the necessity of being in a state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Christ in the Sacred Host??
Open persecution is already here, under the rubric of “equality”, “dignity”, “anti-discrimination”, “hate speech”, etc. people are being mandated to comply with evil through invalid widespread, globally-uniform laws and policies. Those who refuse to cooperate with intrinsic evil (as is our moral duty) are relentlessly pursued and persecuted.
People have been taught a false religion, and taught to deny and ridicule right reason and objective truth. They have been taught to unquestioningly follow the NWO enmity of Faith and morals.
For those with eyes to see, what was coming ahead was fully visible to all on the very same day of Bergoglio’s election. I distinctly remember having a horrible gut-wrenching feeling – close to despair – when on that day, J Vennari posted a video showing the children’s “mass” – with balloons, singing, dancing, and other aberrations, being “presided over” (the only term applicable IMO for that travesty) by Arch Bergoglio.
From the article you linked, perhaps this phrase best sums up the man:
“[Bergoglio] He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.”
See, my children, we must reflect that we have a soul to save, and an eternity that awaits us. The world, its riches, pleasures, and honours will pass away. Let us take care, then. The saints did not all begin well; but they all ended well. We have begun badly; let us end well, and we shall go one day and meet them in Heaven.
St John Vianney
All this in depth analysis is good and well but the bottom line is that transubstantiation does not occur.at a novus ordo mass so it really doesnt bother me, as a traditional catholic, how the papal pretender conducts his church
The bottom line is….Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
― Mark Twain
Yes, his behaviour on the loggia was awful and showed his disdain for the truths of the Faith.
I remember when the questionnaire was sent out prior to the first synod, 2014. When I fussed to my neocat friends, they hissed at me, “Oh stop! Just because they’re asking about homosexuality and divorce and remarriage and Communion in the questionnaire, it doesn’t mean they’re going to change anything! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
Of course these doctrines are on the chopping block! We don’t bring up these things unless we aim to shift, alter, change, tweak, bend or distort these things!
Color me Henny Penny, but I’m looking at the sky, waiting…
Then the Lord rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens…GEN 19:24
“if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. FIRE WILL FALL FROM THE SKY and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests.”
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
“The demon will be especially implacable against the souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them.”
“. . . Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.” Our Lady of Akita
“Will the Synod, in some appreciable measure, create an opening for the Kasperian Proposal to take hold in the life of the Church?” Smoke and mirrors.
The spirit of the Synod and the Kasperian Proposal are sutured into the beastly life-force of the Novus Ordo Institution. They are to the Catholic Church but a beastly mockery, eclipsing Truth with star spangled lies.
That such a question could ever be asked shows how successful the conquering of the sense of the faith was fifty years ago. The Catholic Church and her faith and worship have nothing in common with the VII Novus Ordo pretense.
Where is worship worthy to God, and Faith True to His Bride? In the remnant who keep that which was handed down, and refuse to recognise rupture, contradiction, revolution, modernism and betrayal – in short belial – as belonging to the Universal Church and her Infallible mission.
“Saint Peter’s Successors will at no time deviate from the Faith…Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged.” Pope Innocent III, In Consecratione
Fr Perrone on the magisterium. “The Church when she discharges her function of teaching performs a three-fold office – the office of witness, of judge and of magistera/teacher. She performs the office of magistra…daily wherein by verbal and by practical inculcation – viva voce praxi – she instructs to the faithful all those things which conduce to their training in pure doctrine and morality and leads them, as it were, by the hand along the path of eternal salvation; and that Christ has endowed His Church with infallibility for the performance of these several offices is the truth which Catholics maintain and all non-Catholics deny…”
Cardinal Manning in the Pope and the Antichrist (Current Crisis of the Holy See): “The writers of the Church tell us that in the end times city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and from the Vicar of Jesus Christ…For what is it that makes Rome sacred other than the presence of the Vicar of Jesus Christ…If the Church of Christ departs from Rome, Rome will be no more in the eyes of God than the Jerusalem of old.”
St Jerome: “Keep the faith of St Innocent (the first), who fills the Apostolic Chair and who is the successor and spiritual son of Anastasius, of happy memory; receive no other doctrine, however wise and attractive it may appear.”
Yes – you’re right, and even protestants are facing persecution when it comes to defending the natural law – the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue sodomite “marriage” licenses comes to mind. But I was referring to mass round-up operations, where people are sent to concentration camps (FEMA camps?) simply for holding to the entirety of the Catholic faith, much like what happened in WWII to faithful priests such as Fr Maximilian Kolbe.
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven…”
Is the “sign of the Son of man” (if I remember correctly, the Fathers of the Church interpret this as the sign of the cross) spoken of in sacred scripture the “Sign left by my son” of which Our Lady of Akita speaks? In that case, the message of Our Lady of Akita would correspond to the prophecies spoken of by Our Lord in sacred scripture.
Bogus annulments for a bogus institution.
The Chair of St Peter has stood empty since the death of Pius XII. The Novus Ordo revolution in the dioceses are a macrocosm of the microcosm of the Protestant theft of Catholic See after Catholic See during the Reformation.
The See of Peter belongs to Christ. But if the so-called ‘faithful’ cannot tell, or refuse to recognize, the difference between Christ and belial, of course correction (chastisement) must come. And although both innocent and guilty suffer, as Barbara mentions below, for the faithful love of Christ remains a sweet yoke, and a light burden, and all things work together for good to them that love God, whom God chooses (does not give up to their love of lies). What does it mean to love God? Loving truth above lies, assent to Christ rather than belial, abstaining from the comfort of a counterfeit mockery, in order to witness the True Christ and His True Bride.
Here is some important reading regarding the beginning of the modernist reign of Pius XII.
Here is a Pope who hates the very Office of the Papacy; who does not see the Papacy as a sign of Christian unity but as the very obstacle to that unity.
An intellect in utter darkness, Pope Francis seems to believe decentralization will draw schismatics and heretics and unrepentant sinners to the Church, but each one of those groups will not experience conversion but only make a laughing stock of the Catholic Church.
His heresy is so palpable its becoming ridiculous not to point it out: he believes in a solely earthly, temporal and utopian one world ‘kingdom’ and not in a heavenly one binding both heaven and earth; and as Louie so rightly relates it, Pope Francis is objectively at war with Christ the King and His Kingdom.
If his plans at decentralization come to full fruition, territories and jurisdictions will be lost, and it will take decades, if not centuries to claw back lost territories. Some jurisdictions may be lost forever.
Pius XII was no modernist. He greatly enriched the Church with his encyclicals such as “Mystici Corporis Dei”, “Humani Generis”, “Mediator Dei” etc. He gave great glory to God through the proclamation of the dogma of Assumption, and through the canonizations of great saints such as St Pius X, St Maria Goretti, St Gemma Galgani, and St Louis Marie de Montfort. Pope Pius XII was a man of great holiness, charity and prudence. I wonder whether you have read any accounts of his life. Whatever legitimate criticisms there might be on some of the particular decisions taken during his pontificate, ultimately – and this is the “proof in the pudding” – the truth of the matter is that up to the death of Pius XII, the Church was in full blossom throughout the entire world, with masses of protestants converting to Catholicism, and the Church making great advances through mission territory. Despite there being some closet modernists here and there throughout the seminaries (eg Joseph Ratzinger etc), the faith of the vast majority of Catholics was staunchly orthodox.
It was only starting around 1960 during the pontificate of pope “St” John XXIII, that it appeared as if the gates of hell were thrown literally wide open in order to make a full fronted assault on the rampart protecting the Church, lowered down to the world in order to let in the (odious) “Fresh air” of the world by “St” J XXIII at the beginning of Vatican II.
Certain Cardinals, such as Nichols in the UK, are already acting on the Sin-od Relatio. Francis will just make it formal, after all he has to run a “listening church.”
Anne Catherine Emmerich prophesied what Bergoglio the False Prophet will do, as announced by him also for his “synodal church” giving “genuine doctrinal authority” to episcopal conferences.
April 22, 1823
“I see that when the Second Coming of Christ approaches, a bad priest [Francis] will do much harm to the Church. When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption, and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish…”
“They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise….”
“I came to the Church of Peter and Paul (Rome) and saw a dark world of distress, confusion, and corruption, through which shone countless graces from thousands of saints who there repose…”
“I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church: I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening…”
The original questionnaire was disgusting. It was redolent with false heretical premises; the whole concept and rationale underlying it was evil, opposed to the doctrine of the Faith and the Natural moral law.
In Mediator Dei Pius XII condemned Antiquarianism:
but at his Assisi conference he supported and lauded Josef Jungmann, SJ who wrote, Missarum Sollemnia, in 1948 (The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Developments) and other leaders of the modernist liturgical movement:
[it was] “a consolation and a joy for us to know that we can rely on your help and your understanding in these matters.” http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f104_Dialogue_25.htm
So what do you call a man who writes one thing and does just the opposite? Who supports and praises outright modernists? Birds of a feather, as they say.
The fact that the Church was flourishing during the 1950’s simply means that the modernists reforms hadn’t gotten down to the parish level, but at the Vatican, they were riding high.
Whoever wants to get a feel for how unbelievably scandalous the revolt against Catholic doctrine and morals has been at the Sin-Nod (going further than I even imagined) – consider just the fact that only FOURTEEN – I repeat FOURTEEN bishops in the Sin-Nod voted against a paragraph in the final relatio mandating filthy sex-ed in the classroom for innocent children, evil programs which destroy their purity and innocence, harming them both spiritually and emotionally:
See Chris Ferrara giving the details around the 8:30 mark (with some interesting details about a case in Florida he had been defending a bit later on).
The chasm between Catholics and Conciliarist heretics grows wider and wider. Reading through some comments in blogs, I get the feeling that even some Neo-Catholics want nothing to do with Bergoglio’s “Church of Man” – some are considering jumping ship from the Barque of Peter into unsteady rafts floating in the turbulent waters of the world – ie the schismatic orthodox.
Some entire countries are in de facto schism (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, others no doubt). What will it take for modernist Rome to formally renounce Catholicism? Are they waiting for the arrival of the Anti-Christ to formally repudiate the Church of Christ?
Whose God is Bergoglio’s, who has stated “There is no Catholic God”?
Is it the Freemasonic “Great Architect of the Universe” – an amorphous, pantheistic, syncretist “god”?
“It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.”
Anastasia. Pope Pius XII was the last pope of the Catholic Church. He converted the Rabbi of Rome and his entire family during WWII, he declared universal protection of what was founded in Trent. And he in no way contradicted Trent in his address to the midwives. He had an automatic excommunication of known communists, he was the last Holy Father we had as the wolves closed around his sick bed. We are living the long interregnum between true popes.
‘John xxiii’ invited in the communists/errors of Russia, freemasonic doctrine, and inaugurated a second Vatican Council which Pius XII refused, saying it would be disastrous. Nothing in the magisterium of Pius XII contradicts the Chair of Peter.
It confounds me why, when the errors of the VII heresiarchs slam the faithful in the face say in and day out forcing them into exile, you fixate on Pius XII as a ‘villan’.
In the end it is the work of belial to try to justify the heresiarchal real estate of satan and his tenants as if it still holds the bones of Christ’s Bride. The Popes are clear – any who deviate in faith, or who deviate in worship , or who deviate in morals, one degree from Sacred Tradition, defined and settled, or Sacred Worship given and protected….even one degree, lose Catholicity…they belong to belial…until they convert…
The sedevacantists who wish to say that nothing whatsoever in the ‘magisterium’ of Pius XII ( should read ‘the magisterium of the Church’ and not ‘magisterium of Pius XII’ to be correct) contradicted the Chair of Peter just shows me how far off many seds are in seeing no fault whatsoever in his reign because to do so would mean they would have to say that he also was an anti-Pope. They have invested too much in him as being the last true Pope and they are afraid of loosing their credibility.
“Anyone who deviates even one degree from morals, Scripture, and Sacred Worship, they belong to belial until they convert.” So mabe Pius XII converted and took back his teachings on contraception and his imprudence of letting the wolves in to begin the rule of modernism. I sure hope so for his sake and ours.
Anastasia, and others, read this:
Then read this:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Motives And Ends Of Marriage – We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.
A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: 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. He then adds: 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. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime — nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.
A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition — such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia. So much should be explained regarding Matrimony as a natural contract.”
Both belong to a unified Petrine magisterium, protected by the Holy Ghost.
I have read this from the Cathechism of the council of Trent years ago. It can be very misleading especially for those modern day teaders who are not aware of or reject the teachings of the Catholic Church on the hierarchy of purposes of marriage and have embraced an inversion of this hierarchy by subordinating the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory to the secondary purpose of unity of the couple. This passage from the Cathechism of Trent was careless in that its title should have made the distinction not only to the reader themselves but to themselves that it was talking about Man’s Motive and ends what MAN seeks from marriage and that it was not addressing the hierarchy of purposes instituted by God. Just because a healthy male and female sexual attraction has a ‘natural’ desire to join intimately with the opposite sex and this desire is not always primarily rooted in a motivation for children but in a desire for intimacy and companionship does not negate God’s hierachyal purposes of marriage.
This distinction has to be clearly made when reading this passage. I can’t blame you for thinking that you found one place where it contradicts God’s hierarchy of purposes of marriage but it just doesn’t cut it. This passage is poorly written in that it doesn’t clearly distinguish between Man’s motives and God purposes.
Let me try to say it another way. Looking at a picture of a Gerber baby is not what intices most healthy male and female sexual attractions. I get the impression that you are concluding that since procreation is not Man’s primary motive for marriage therfore God did not make procreation marriage’s primary purpose? this is the argument that all the Sodomites and contraceptors are using and thinking.
God’s primary purpose or end that He had in mind for the male and female sex organ was pocreation not companionship and help or unity. One need not have sex in order to have companionship or help from another. The deep intimate and unitive bonds that should spring from conjugal intercourse is instituted by God for the grand holy and sacrificial mission of bringing souls into the world for God’s glory.
Man on an earthly level has been marrying for not only natural inate motives but for social and political motives also. These are not always in line with the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. Does this mean that God therefore did not institute procreation and education of children for God ‘s glory as its primary purpose. Of course not. It is essential to understand that conjugal intercourse was instituted for marriage by God for the primary purpose of procreation and secondary purpose of unity and third purpose of a legitimate orientation for sexual desire. The secondary purpose of unity is subordinate to the primary purpose of procreation and the two purposes can nver be separated from one another in act word or deed. NFP does this and Pius XII letter to the midwives, although it did say some correct things regarding marriage it failed to uphold this when it said that one can separate procreation from unity by exclusively having recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children for social, psychological or financial reasons.
I will post, once again a few quotes from the Church Fathers against contraceptions to help you. I am glad you brought this up. It gave me another chance to help out.
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)
Anastasia said: “I have read this from the Cathechism of the council of Trent years ago. It can be very misleading…”
I would say there can be no real debate over the Doctrinal purity of Pius XII’s reign with anyone who perceives the plain talk of Trent as misleading because we are so thoroughly modernised. For myself, a well schooled ten year old could understand it, likewise, Pius XII’s address is equally plain. The problem is the modernist post-Novus Ordo idea that to be Catholic, continance in marriage is virtually not permitted. At any rate, for all the plain talk, this is stuff for faithful theologians. Nonetheless, no theologian sees any contradicition between Pius XII and Trent. He is seen as being ‘doctrinally pure’. But we know live in times where, because most folks wrongly believe heresiarchs are our shepherds and also wrongly believe we have the right to attack our shepherds, then True Popes are fair game as well.
The Novus Ordo idea that a lay person or parish priest can run around questioning or attacking a true pope – one whom one recognises as Christ’s Vicar because they truly believe he holds the faith and universally promulgates it – is nonesense. Equally as nonesensical as ‘recognising’ as pope, the leader of the VII-Novus Ordo which exists to contradict and suck-dry the True Church. This is why a wolf is never a shepherd and a shepherd is never a wolf – as Holy Mother Church teaches.
“Now the apostates are these: Arius, Achilles, Anthales, Carpones, another Arius, and Samartes, sometime Presbyters; Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops. And the novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the scriptures are these following….[The Saint goes on to lay-out in detail the falsehoods of the wolves in question.]” Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius, John Henry Newman, Editor.
We need more Athanasius’ who do not shy away from clearly and plainly pointing the finger, by name and ‘status’, at those who have cast themselves out from the Body of Christ and lost all authority by their ‘apostasy’.
Good explication, dear Anastasia, between objective purposes of marriage and the subjective, which may not be opposed to the objective, and which may be supportive of the objective (as deemed by God and knowable by our reason).
Sorry I mispelled Your name Lynda.