The seductive words of Satan… Surely they come to us from various voices and many places, but from the Bishop of Rome? You better believe it.
The seductive words of Satan
Comments (111)
Comments are closed.
I am convinced that the Synod will be his downfall, however he responds to it. If he goes with the heretics like Kasper, all of the faithful and even the neocons will be through with him. If he goes with the truth, all of those who believe that he will “change” the Church’s teaching or practice (which affects the teaching), will turn on him. Soon after, he will probably resign or go to his eternal rest for a broken heart.
The whole thing really just goes to highlight the incredible deceit of the devil and evil men, using ‘words’ and ‘language’ to manipulate us.
Did God really say that you would surely die? Maybe he just meant that by killing the body you’d be closer to Him as a spiritual being! So it is not rebellious, no!
I wonder… when God confused the languages at Babel, was this in a sense because those heathen people engaged in similar Orwellian tactics? So God, in an ironic punishment, further took the one language to it’s logical end to divide the people permanently?
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Luke 16:18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery.
Jesus Christ over rules this false pope once again.
Welcome back, Tradwriter. Your words are difficult to accept, but we all know “the truth hurts.” Personally, I don’t think Bergoglio gives two hoots about the divorced, the poor, global warming, the environment, the marginalized or anything else. What he cares about is destroying the Deposit of Faith handed down to us by Peter and the Apostles. The acceptable way to do that is not by contradicting these teachings, but by REPLACING them. That is why he can’t SHUT UP!!!! Calling this demonic is “right on.” He is doing the work of the Freemasons while wearing the robes of Christ. I can’t think of anything more frightening. Our Lady warned us!
Our Lady, help of Christians, pray for us!
“Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the Revolution”…!!!
LOL!!!!
So true Louie, so True…!
BTW – apparently the saintly Pius XII (God willing, may his TRUE canonization come soon!) considered the TRUE canonization of Pius X to be one of the most important acts of his pontificate – he carried out the canonization in the midst of a very severe illness that could have taken his life to God, but he nevertheless carried it on with heroic charity, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.
God Bless…
PS “Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the Revolution” deserves three 🙂 🙂 🙂
😀
More obvious heresy. And no one in authority to denounce the repeated heresies and start to mitigate the immeasurable scandal and danger to countless souls! No, instead, almost all those in authority are heretical too, or too cowardly to speak against blatant lies that are against unchangeable Faith and morals. And the “Catholic” Media continue to misrepresent the Pope as being in complete obedience to the Faith and moral law – thus sharing in the culpability of leading souls astray. How much longer, Lord? Reparation!!! Blessed Michael, defend us in battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil . . .
What he cares about too is maintaining his popularity among clueless “Catholics” & the world…
Malachi 2:11-16 Juda hath transgressed, and abomination hath been committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. [12] The Lord will cut off the man that hath done this, both the master, and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering to the Lord of hosts. [13] And this again have you done, you have covered the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and bellowing, so that I have no more a regard to sacrifice, neither do I accept any atonement at your hands. [14] And you have said: For what cause? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee, and the wife of thy youth, whom thou hast despised: yet she was thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant. [15] Did not one make her, and she is the residue of his spirit? And what doth one seek, but the seed of God? Keep then your spirit, and despise not the wife of thy youth.
Mark 10:6-9 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
ROMANS 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
The Pope is not above Scripture. Period!
Jorgey Boy is a false shepherd, a son of Satan. He is like a whitewashed tomb, outside all white, but inside full of dead man’s bones and all corruption, home of the lizard and the spider. And all the silent bishops who follow him are a brood of vipers! Son’s of Satan. Better a millstone be hung around his neck and he be thrown into the ocean than deceive the little ones.
Michael F Poulin
Papa Bergoglio is just another step closer to being declared to be in Formal Schism, as well as being Formally Declared a Heretic.
Something tells me that Papa Bergoglio is an Apostate.
In all the discussions regarding admitting the divorced and re-married to Holy Communion, I notice the word “annulment” is rarely or ever used. While the annulment process may be overused and sometimes questionable, the word “annulment” is mainly associated with the Catholic Church. Could it be that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is ignoring this process because its true goal is to eliminate the word “sin” for those living in adulterous situations? I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter from Louie or fellow commentators. Thank you.
Leopards do not change their spots. All is possible with God’s perfect mercy but Catholic common sense dictates that “eternal REST” is likely not in Francis’ future.
“Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the Revolution”
Fantastically funny!
Brilliant video!
Thank you, Louie.
He is surely an apostate as he is way past simple heresy as far as Im concerned…but what person with any voice (cardinal or bishop who is still “in union” with Rome) will ever call him out? The ONLY bishops truly calling him what he is all operate under the dreaded S word and because of that will not be given the time of day, even by the few remaining good Catholics who are labeled traditionalists. Its definately a mess any way you look at it.
Catholic annulments are now nothing more than divorces granted by the vatican 2 false church. Id venture to say that 95% of them are bogus and of course not valid in the eyes of God. In reality there are VERY few legitimate reasons to declare a marriage as being null.
Don’t think for a second “conservative” crowd won’t go along with it. A few here and there perhaps. The vast majority will go right along with it. The Catholic Answers spin doctors will sell it. Jimmy Akin will give his “ten things to know and share” about how it’s all perfectly Catholic. Tim Staples will tell us how wrong “rad-trads” are, and Patrick Madrid will tell us how those opposing the synod are “more catholic than the pope.”
And the “conservative” catholic crowd will breathe a sigh of relief and think no more about it.
Exactly. Cardinal Burke? Bishop Schneider? Priests of the FSSP and ICKSP? The faithful are awaiting something, anything from you guys.
Dear Louie and all,
Thanks to two years of new and eye-opening discussions, we all should have known it would take either the Pope’s conversion or removal, to avoid reaching this point.
__
Chris Ferrara wrote an excellent 4-part piece for The Remnant in 2014, which clearly identified this situation, and advised fellow frustrated Catholics that :
“The Bishop of Rome is no more exempt than any other member of the hierarchy from the indignation of his subjects when he wounds them or the Church..s not to be confused with hatred or rancor..(or lack of charity); it is, rather, an appropriate reaction to a wrong and a natural impetus for seeking its redress.
__
In Part II, he quoted Fr. Brian Harrison: “Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue…”
Chris then explained (what Louie and most of us also concluded long ago)–that …” Catholics deceive themselves, and each other, if they pretend it is not the Pope himself who—whatever his subjective intention—has stoked the fires of dissent and rebellion by commissioning and then lauding Kasper’s “profound and beautiful presentation.” ( of false mercy)
__
“.. whenever a Modernist contrives to undermine some aspect of the Faith, he labels it a “problem” for which there must be a new “solution.”
“..PROBLEM: a marriage that was “ratified and consummated between baptized persons,” yet “the communion of married life is “IRREMEDIABLY BROKEN” and one or both of the spouses have contracted a second civil marriage.”
” In other words, (Chris writes) a valid Catholic marriage followed by a civil divorce and an adulterous civil union on the part of one or both spouses. Here Kasper contends that “the early Church gives us an indication that can serve as a means of escape from the dilemma.” Dilemma? What dilemma? The one Kasper has invented.” … it is simply a prescription for laxity… Kasper’s .. suggestion for authorizing mass sacrilege is neither profound nor beautiful; IT IS EVIL..”
__
1. .. Kasper attempts ..defending civil marriage, arguing ..it is distinct from other forms of ‘irregular’ cohabitation, ” Really? On what authority.. his own worthless opinion, which the Pope endorses as “beautiful and profound.”?
2. The idea that the Church could countenance “living in the second marriage to the best of [its] possibilities” without the traditional requirement of abstinence from sexual relations is nothing short of monstrous. .. Kasper is really saying: that a couple living in an adulterous union should “perfect” it and persist in it until death, thus defying Saint Paul’s very warning that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers… shall possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6-10).”
3. Even more monstrous is the idea that someone living in a continuous state of adultery, having repented only of the “failure” of a sacramental marriage, could be allowed to approach the confessional on a regular basis without having to confess, repent of, and promise before God to cease his continuing adultery.
4. ..Most monstrous of all, is the idea that an adulterer in this situation should have recourse to Holy Communion as a “source of strength” while he continues to enjoy the fruits of an adulterous relationship.
__
Echoing the Pope’s own sentiments, Kasper declares that “[a] pastoral approach of tolerance, clemency and indulgence” would affirm that “the sacraments are not a prize for those who behave well or for an elite, excluding those who are most in need…” On that bizarre premise, everyone in a state of mortal sin would be entitled to receive Holy Communion because he is in a state of mortal sin, while those who “behave well” would be hogging spiritual goods they don’t require.”
__
.., he declares that his “solution” is necessary to “give witness in a credible way to the Word of God in difficult human situations, as a message of fidelity,.. mercy, life, and joy.” In other words, until now the Church has been without credibility and mercy toward the divorced and remarried, her discipline joyless and lifeless, because she heeds Our Lord’s divine warning that the divorced and “remarried” are guilty of adultery! Kasper’s “beautiful and profound” conclusion is thus an implicit attack on God Himself. But that, after all, is what Modernism always involves.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/364-the-francis-effect-a-gathering-storm
So Patrick Madrid support public adulterers receiving the Eucharist? I can imagine Tim Staples would support it but it is hard to imagine Madrid would do that.
Beautiful quote from the Scriptures! Actually what was in vow on the consecration of a bishop before, the promise not to call good evil and evil good.
If we are going to use the word “satanic” in the context of “papal” teaching I think the issue of “ipso facto loss of office” should be on-topic, and not just in the comments section. People at least need to know the arguments.
The last time I think this topic was mentioned in the blog itself, the recommendation was to “read Robert Siscoe”. But given that Siscoe apparently has enough material to write a book on the subject, I submit that this is an unsatisfactory solution for all. Not everyone will have the time to read that book any more than we have the time to read Socci’s “It’s Not Francis”, or even Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”. (And, of course, none of us would hesitate to affirm that God exists without having read this last book.)
What we do have time for, however, is to consider the core points of the Siscoe thesis. As I understand it, the core point is that, to be a notorious heretic, Bergoglio would have to be in receipt of, and ignore, a canonical admonition from someone who is recognised as having the authority to address one to him.
On the general topic of admonition, The Catholic Encyclopedia writes, among other things, the following:
“Since contumacy implies obstinate persistence in crime, in order to become liable to these punishments a person must not only be guilty of crime, but must also persist in his criminal course after having been duly warned and admonished. This warning (monitio canonica), which must precede the punishment, can emanate either from the law itself or from the ecclesiastical superior or judge. Contumacy can therefore occur in one of two ways: first, when the delinquent does not heed the warning of his ecclesiastical superior or judge, addressed to him personally and individually; second, when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).”
Given that a pope does not have an “ecclesiastical superior or judge”, it seems that we must look at the question of “full knowledge” of the law. On the subject of “vincible ignorance”, the Encyclopedia writes:
[I]gnorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of ‘moral diligence’. This certainly does not mean all possible effort…. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances.”
This is an objective test (“a really sensible and prudent person”) and it is objectivity that is strongly implied in the Encyclopedia’s statement that a pope would become a public heretic “were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ“.
This seems to me to be an eminently practical way to protect the faith, somewhat akin to the way a computer system protects a company’s critical data by blocking threats. To the hypothetical traditionalist (aka Catholic) who may ask, “At what precise point did the pope lose office?”, I would answer, “At what precise point did you (presumably) stop obeying him?”.
Haven’t heard him on the radio in awhile. I predict he’ll do mental gymnastics and say that the synod isn’t doing that, even if it’s quite clear that they are. I’m assuming, like the rest of his pro-apologetic buds, he’s mum on the fact that Francis supports it. He’s one of the go-to guys when a large dose of papalotry is called for.
Rich, I agree with you. However, that is not the opinion of the institutional “catholic” church. Therefore, I’m still wondering why the hierarchy fails to mention annulments as the solution. It appears they are leap frogging over this in order to put their stamp of approval on sin. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Annulment is not a solution for sin on the part of one or both parties to marriage. It is an official declaration that there was no marriage. One has either been married or one has not.
I, a Catholic, have not obeyed Pope Francis in anything he has said which is in contradiction of the Deposit of Faith, of which there have been very, very many since his election. I believe he is a formal heretic, given all the publicly-known circumstances, but I await the competent authority making the necessary finding. However, there does not seem to be the necessary courage or zeal among the few non-heretical bishops to demand retractions of the material heresies or an admission of heresy from the Pope.
I am inclined to think Mr Madrid is a charitable and patient man, who bears wrongs, is slow to anger, and gives persons the benefit of the doubt. I am sure he loves the Church. I see him slowly extricating himself away from the Catholic Answers organization. He does not act rashly. Give him time and I believe eventually he too will come to see the conflicts between the ancient Catholic Faith and the Modernist heresies and will make a good ally someday.
Dear Lynda,
Both of your comments reflect our views as well. We so far have not been “commanded” to do anything evil. These novelties have been presented in the form of suggestions which can be rejected. We don’t participate in false ecumenism–counseling people about their need to convert instead. Neither do we “welcome” unrepentant sinners into our communities–warning them to repent of their sins and the threat of eternity in hell. Issues like these have been clear-cut enough for us all to clearly see the contradictions between these “ideas” and Tradition/Truth. In THIS “welcoming” proposal, we clearly hear the voice of Our Lord in Revelations–Letter to the Churches, saying
“I have THIS against you…that you TOLERATE this Jezebel in your midst—
(an unrepentant sinner who leads others into error). He threatens that unless they do penance, He will come and remove their lampstand, and punish them suddenly. So yes, we can easily keep rejecting these false notions of toleration of sin. We suffer the consequences of division among family members, friends, and churchmen who disagree with us. But we recognize that as the price of being lights in this darkness.
We agree that it is important to keep calling for our leaders to take swift and public action against these errors. We pray daily for the conversion of these bad leaders in the meantime, and go on behaving as Catholics always should.
The coming Synod, as many have warned, may be a point of no return on these things. We still believe it will end in more division among those attending, without any promulgations of their errors. But time will tell.
Craig V–Yes, this is not the time for words (no matter how powerful). This is the time for ACTION—Drastic ACTION!! Burke, Schneider–WHOEVER– must put their money where their mouth is. Step out of the box and plant both feet in Tradition. Our Lord is waiting for someone to defend His Church and restore ALL THINGS IN CHRIST!!
Come on, guys!!!
I’ve heard of some “conservative” priests who are (rightly) horrified at the thought of giving communion to public adulterers, but (very sadly) then go on to say that the dilemma can be “solved” by increasing the number of annulments granted (aka catholic divorces) because allegedly, according to Bergoglio, about 50% of Catholic marriages are invalid to begin with because the contracting parties did not truly understand the responsibilities inherent to the sacrament of matrimony. A man or woman who obtains a phony “annulment” and then goes on to “marry” someone else is still guilty of the sin of adultery! Insanity!
I guess “annulment” provides a sort of conscience “tranquillizer” for both the couple and the priest that has to deal with the moral dilemma of the up-coming sin-nod.
Head of Pope’s “Gang of Nine” to Speak at ‘Shadow Council II’:
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/papal-advisor-to-speak-at-conference-attacking-church-doctrine
The writing is on the wall…
If only the folks at CMTV could have the moral courage and fortitude to “connect the dots” with regards to Francis we would have a strong ally in defense of the faith…
Always throwing the children out as weapons to promote sin. So let me get this straight, Pope Francis wants the devastated children of divorce to have Godly example by supporting their parent in adultery? Instead of counseling the parent to live a Godly life, chaste and obedient to Our Lord, the Pope wants them to continue in their mortal sin and destructive behavior all in an effort to help the children? How is adding insult, insanity, and sin to the injury of divorce somehow better for a child?
Diabolical disorientation 101. Lord have mercy on this messed up Pope. God bless~
Could you explain the difference between “the Church supplies” in the case of SSPX priests’ ability to administer the sacraments without faculties and why the Church wouldn’t supply in the case where two people, in good faith, request an annulment, which is granted, yet they’re still judged guilty of adultery if they marry someone else in the Church? I maintain the guilt is in the tribunal, not with the invincibly ignorant couple. Let’s be careful when attempting to lay blame.
So sorry, meant as reply to In Hoc above… I hate when that happens…
Dear Dumb_ox,
Thank you for yet another great comment. I was totally ignorant of this admonishing aspect of the canon law:
“when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).”
Many tend to ignore the infraction of Divine law by commission of the sin of heresy and the consequent automatic loss of jurisdiction, as emphasized by Pope Pius IV, Dr. St. Bellarmine et al. They are stuck on the necessity of formal legal declaration, by the proper ecclesiastical authorities, to remove legal designation from the incumbent of St. Peter’s Chair. This formal declaration being, in fact, only necessary to rescind legal designation and only pertaining to publication of the deposition and good governance. In the meantime, i. e. before the formal, legal declaration, they continue to regard the incumbent as being true Pope, with full jurisdiction, although they disregard his authority (jurisdiction) at will, in total disregard of centuries of Magisterial Teaching regarding the Supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. This position of contorted logic defies Catholic doctrine and elevates themselves to being the proper determinators of what is and what is not Catholic doctrine and what is to be obeyed, or ignored. These people, fixated on the legal aspects of the matter, might now be convinced by what you have discovered.
Since contumacy is beyond doubt in the conciliar popes; since presumption of their serial ignorance of the law is preposterous; according to what you have discovered, they have each already incurred, beyond Devine censure, also the legal penalty of the law for heresy – loss of Membership and jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. This legal censure being already incurred before the occurrence of formal declaration by the proper authorities. It sounds to me that this could be a very powerful and cogent ancillary argument?
Are you able to provide more detail of the precise codes of canon law involved here?
What you say sounds very right to me – provided of course that the couple are genuinely ignorant and not complicit.
We must be prudent. Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider are both acting in a prudent manner. We can’t expect them to respond to every word Francis utters. First of all the sheer volume of craziness that comes out of his mouth is daunting. Secondly, my sense is they are waiting for something solid to come out of the SinNod in October before they do/say anything concrete.
–
Thirdly they both are very aware of the buzz on the street, and the buzz in faithful Catholic blogland. They are watching. I know both will act/speak when it is appropriate for them to do so.
–
Cardinal Burke has already stated he will resist if something concrete comes out of the SinNod. Part of the evil coming out of evil mouths is that it’s pretty vague, and the language is intentionally two-forked. Yes, we are outraged and want something DONE right now – but that’s not how it works in the Church. Come on now, we know from the past that the Church moves slowly to correct wrongs – too slowly for modern tastes but she will get there….have no fear.
I think you are correct, my2cents. First the annulment process is by necessity slow. Second it has been portrayed as ‘expensive’ and beyond the means of ‘the poor.’
–
Therefore we must simply sidestep that process and go right to the nub. All are invited to The Table (sic) and no one can be excluded.
–
So step right up – no need to wait for, or pay for, that pesky annulment when you are fine where you are. So let’s all pick an adulterous couple (oops! I mean an irregular family of whatever composition…) and put our arms around them for a big hug, and let’s walk with them until they see the truth (which will have completely disappeared by the time we get a few feet forward).
–
That’s why Cardinal Burke was shuffled off to Malta – he was in the catbird seat and would have squawked loudly if the annulment process had been put into mothballs.
Yes, I had forgotten this stuff. Chris Ferrara has the knack of putting the truth out there, in all its complexity, but in a way that we can all get it. And he’s a lawyer! Go figure.
–
Here in Canada there are places where a ‘christian’ graduate of a ‘christian’ law school cannot be a member of the Lawyer’s Association – therefore he or she cannot practice law. This has been upheld in the upper courts.
–
So you Americans, thank God for Chris Ferrara and the few others like Brian McCall for their lawyerly Catholic thought.
–
Now off to re-read Ferrara’s piece.
Lynda, I can’t think of one thing Francis has said that effects me to any great extent – not so far. Yes, I think he is doing grave harm to my Church, and leading millions of souls to Hell, but I still say my prayers, do my duty, attend the FSSP Mass, and interact with neighbours – and just generally ignore him personally.
–
Can you be a little plainer – and I really do want to know in case I’m missing something – what has Francis said that you have ‘not obeyed?’
–
If you mean that you have vehemently disagreed with him, I’m with you, but what has he asked you to do that you refuse to do?
You are right, Lynda. I can’t tell you how many newCatholics I’ve heard who think an annulment is for marriage breakdown. They are shocked – and will NOT accept that we are expected to ‘stay’ in bad marriages. Or if one leaves, the other is to live a ‘married’ life in absentia.
–
We have become almost completely secularized, nay, protestantized (is that a word?) over the past 50 years. If we each did a survey of our friends and neighbours and what they think the Church teaches and what they are willing to go along with, we’d be shocked.
Yes. It’s especially galling when someone like Cupich, for example, spouts off almost word for word something Francis has said the week before – and Voris will absolutely blast him out of the water – but nary a word about the Grand Originator Francis. Poor Michael Voris, he’s being called out on some of his inconsistencies and slight of hand over the Bishop Schneider ‘clarification’ and is not looking too solid.
–
If I were Cupich, and gave a darn about any of this, I’d be protesting that Francis said it first!
But it’s the parish priest who is the gate-keeper in all of this. From personal experience I can tell you that the priest I asked about (many years ago) obtaining an annulment, said “well from what you have told me, you didn’t have much of a marriage.” Meaning that the grounds I was citing were not necessary because my marriage was a stinker and that was all that counted. Dear God! How many lives would have been different, how many saints we could have risen up if we had been given the proper advice and counselling!
Barbara, Amen. IMHO, those who get divorced & remarried and want to be “included” in the Church have a long row to hoe & need to be instructed with the true teachings of the Church. Those to whom annulments are granted are not open to our judgment but require our acceptance. We need to see clearly to remove the specks. Those who die in their “sins” may spend a long time purging them, but those who refrain from instructing what those sins are may receive a much warmer, permanent reception.
Barbara, I hope and pray you are right. I guess we must wait and see. However, Bergoglio has proven to have herectical beliefs almost from the moment he was elected Pope. How much rope does he need? Time will tell.
This is only the start of whats to come. Once they acheive their goal of allowing certain people to receive the sacraments in an objective state of mortal sin then the floodgates will be open. Thats the bigger plan pick a sensitive issue like this which majority of catholics will accept then theres no boundaries because once theres a so called (pastoral approach ) to this issue they will accept every deplorable sin to be accepted. Francis has to empty the church of all divine content so the antichrist can take his seat.
Their game is Problem , reaction , solution
1.PROBLEM. Create the false problem ie the need to help devorced & remarried.
2. REACTION. synod of bishops to find best way to help these people
3. SOLUTION. A pastoral approach in the which they dont rewrite doctrine but allow these people to recieve sacraments in an objective state of mortal sin
It is diabolic my friends satan wants as many catholics as possible to profane our lord in the blessed sacrament francis is carrying this out by pushing for people to come back to church not in repentance but making sacriliages communions confessions etc. the goal is a church full of sinners who are basically encouraged to live in sin. The synod will go by without any formal herectical document so conservative catholics will say same as now they hvent changed the doctrine only the pastoral approach. If souls werent at stake it could be laughable that people cant really see it for what it is A diabolic plan
Blessed virgin mary assumed into heaven – pray for us
http://youtu.be/cMjNevd2gXs
Did you view the recent “Mic’d Up” show regarding some Marian apparitions in the US and Medjugorje? It seems to take a much more cautious approach towards the Medjugorje charade (indeed, leaving the possibility open that the farce could in fact be “approved” by Rome, at which point Voris and co. would have to follow along like lemmings) than in his first show on the subject, where he showed a vigorous opposition to this scam that has already been condemned by both the local bishop and the conference of bishops of Yugoslavia:
This is the original show, the newer one is the latest “Mic’d up” or one of the latest shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gaj3GREo57c
My point is this: Is Mike Voris on a slippery slope of “compliance” with NewChurch as his brain is slowly being turned into mush so that he’s increasingly seeing things blurry?
–
As far as I can tell, there is a marked shift in tone from the old program to the latest show.
Mike,
–
The INVINCIBLY IGNORANT????
Are you serious????
Do you seriously claim that 50% of allegedly (according to Bergoglio) “invalid” marriages are “Invincibly ignorant” (whatever that’s supposed to mean here anyhow) of the duties involved in the matrimonial contract (till death do us part, in sickness and in health etc)…
C’mon…
There may be, of course certain specific cases (the exception) where the tribunal may be to blame in providing an erroneous judgment, and the spouses may be free of blame before God (depending on their subjective dispositions) if they marry again, but to make a rule of the exception is wrong.
It is incumbent upon all to learn their faith. We throw about the term “invincible ignorance” MUCH too liberally. Why would any Catholic couple be invincibly ignorant as to what a constitutes a true annulment? They are just as guilty as the false tribunal that grants it. God will not be mocked. Making excuses for laziness and INTENTIONAL ignorance isnt helping anybody.
I commented before i read your post In Hoc….you are 100% correct. Enough of the nonsensical excuses for sin.
I hope and pray so, but time is short. If someone don’t see it by now, especially someone who’s livelihood is catholic apologetics, what in the world will it take
What they’re doing now with settled morality, they’ve already done with settled doctrine.
I personally know two people who have gotten “annulments” and BRAG about what a joke it was (and NEVER should have been granted one). You can accept these false annulments all you want….I never will. “Do unto others…”; You dont show charity to anyone by turning a blind eye to someone in a state of mortal sin…a true Catholic, with the sole intention of correcting the sinner so they do not go to hell, admonishes said sinner. “I got an annulment so all is well” is a damnable assumption.
The problem is the nature of the heresy itself…modernism. It’s like trying to nail water vapor to the wall. An ingenious evil concocted in the mind of Satan himself in my opinion.
All other heresies, as far as I know, can be proven by a simple, “do you believe x?” Or “do you deny y?”
The modernist either blatantly lies to such questions, or has his mind so warped he doesn’t believe he’s contradicting anything.
The best question to put to them in an ecclesiastical court of law, would be in regard to the infallible dogmas proclaimed in the First Vatican Council regarding the unchangeable nature of church dogma itself.
The First Vatican Council is totally ignored. We need to beat “conservative” catholic media over the head with it on their call in shows non-stop. Force the issue. We need a national campaign to do that among ALL traditionalists. Just hammer em non-stop.
MARY THE DAWN , CHRIST THE PERFECT DAY
Mary the Dawn, Christ the Perfect Day;
Mary the Gate, Christ the Heav’nly Way!
Mary the Root, Christ the Mystic Vine;
Mary the Grape, Christ the Sacred Wine!
Mary the Wheat-sheaf, Christ the Living Bread;
Mary the Rose-Tree, Christ the Rose Blood-red!
Mary the Font, Christ the Cleansing Flood;
Mary the Chalice, Christ the Saving Blood!
Mary the Temple, Christ the Temple’s Lord;
Mary the Shrine, Christ the God adored!
Mary the Beacon, Christ the Haven’s Rest;
Mary the Mirror, Christ the Vision Blest!
Mary the Mother, Christ the Mother’s Son.
Both ever blest while endless ages run.
Amen.
I agree with In Hoc, so true! Everybody gets “canonized” for letting the spirit of Vatican II speak through them. The Abbe de Nantes called it “conciliar illuminism” which I think is a great description.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=voRRmfsOWNE
Dear Barbara, A Catholic must always be concerned with what the Pope addresses to them, formally or informally, directly or indirectly, through the various means of communication. Obedience is required in matters of Faith and morals, in discipline and governance, unless it is in opposition to the unchangeable, fixed Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis says he is continually teaching in his homilies, talks, etc.
For instance (and there are many), I do not obey him when he purports to teach that we ought to accept other religions as good in themselves, and not seek to convert souls to the Catholic Faith, that they can be saved without it, or that marriage can end before the death of a spouse and that another sexual union may be entered into and recognised as something other than public and obstinate grave sin (suggesting a civil divorce and a civil marriage to another person gives some validity to this kind of adultery, somehow ends a true marriage). There are many more but they can be found online.
The longer this evil situation is allowed to continue, endangering countless souls, the more culpable are the bishops who fail to act.
In Hoc & Rich, I make no claim to any 50% invincibly ignorant. nor to validity of unions. My concern was In Hoc’s seemingly blanket “phony “annulment” and then goes on to “marry” someone else is still guilty of the sin of adultery” statement. Rich, regarding the two that “gamed” the system, I hope you were able to set them straight that regardless of the finding of nullity, they were guilty of grave matter. With all the comment space that’s been taken up here over the years regarding the bad teaching by those in authority forming the young consciences, how is it hard to believe they’re incapable of making an adult commitment? Heck, they’re raised in a 90210 morality and probably 80% are co-habitating &/or using birth control while attending Pre-Cana. There are times for Jon Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” and time for our Lord’s “Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.”
The Pope shows profound disrespect for the institution of marriage when he suggests 50% aren’t validly married. The criteria for marriage are simple and straightforward, and if the Church purports to officiate a marriage where the criteria were not met, the authorities have colluded in an invalid marriage. If a couple intend to marry, and are of age, of sound mind, etc., they do marry. It is the duty of the priest to ensure that the couple agrees to marriage, in its objective components.
Annulment is simply the declaration made retrospectively by the competent authority that a marriage did not come into existence in a given case. Before the Tribunal makes its declaration, the marriage never existed, but this must be proven and found to be the case by the competent authority.
(I don’t want to complicate unnecessarily but there are void marriages (no marriage ever came into existence) and voidable marriages, which may be validated by the couple treating their marriage as valid.)
What is standard for Bergoglio is to continue the meaningless doublespeak and allow the abuses and heresy to develop and not correct them directly. I do no t believe there will be a formal instruction at the synod as such regarding the heresy which he is oh so quietly affirming, but out of the October synod will come a new emphasis of ‘pastoral concern for specific situations’. This will be the green light for adultery being ratified–‘in specific situation’. The present bishop of Rome is just getting started. The violation of the Church’s long-held teaching on marriage is only the opening gambit. He intends to make a one-world church, a false church. How much do we have to witness before people will admit it?
Mike
I think that for some reason you are looking to give people a pass on adultery. We dont live in the jungles of south america in the 1600’s where invincible ignorance might possibly be a valid argument. As far as I know, children of the age of reason (as young as 10-12 years old and maybe younger) are fully capable of being damned. The idea that young adults (in their 20’s lets say) are too lazy to know what the Church teaches about marriage and thus arent responsible for their own actions doesnt fly with me. I got married at 19 and was fully aware what marriage was. m no judging here but like I said earlier, God will not be mocked. We have a duty to know and learn our Faith.
Also, any person with any common sense knows that the main reason annulments are sought in the first place is because at least one of the spouses has already engaged in an adulterous relationship and are looking for some sort of justification (false as it is) from the Church. Nobody is looking to get an annulment just to gave it in their pocket.
Rich,
–
I thoroughly agree… I’m truly bewildered that someone on this thread may (apparently) be trying to give folks a free pass on adultery… It’s bizarre.
Mike,
–
You’re arguments don’t hold water by any stretch of the imagination. Sorry, but the natural law is engraved in the souls of all human beings – sodomy and adultery is against the natural law. In Genesis, Joseph knew that to lie in bed with the wife of his Egyptian master would be a grievous sin even before Moses gave the law to the Israelites. Furthermore, what you say flies in the face of common experience. Have you been in a position where you have (vainly) attempted to charitably admonish public sinners within your close family circle? Well, I have, and THEY KNOW the Church’s teaching on the given subject, and quite frankly, they couldn’t care less – that’s pretty much the bottom line. It’s NOT about invincible ignorance – FAR from it, it’s about having fallen prey to the spirit of the age through weakness (due to culpable faults such as lack of prayer, faith, and possibly bad communions and confessions) and lack of love for God and Truth.
Lastly, in regards to the Lord’s words you gave above, he plainly states “NOW SIN NO MORE”. This is after the adulteress would (presumably) have sought sincere forgiveness from God. This is opposite to the situation of the phony annulments we are talking about here – this is people wanting to be excused for their sins while remorselessly carrying them on in order to numb their conscience.
Rich,
–
“any person with common sense knows…”
Exactly.
The laughable 50% invalidity rate proposed by Bergoglio just happens to be (surprise, surprise) the divorce rate among pagans and proddies in a lot of western countries. Go figure.
The trick of the modernists here is to get it into people’s minds that some/most marriages are “invalid” in order to give people a free pass on their phony annulments.
Imagine illiterate people in centuries past, with no access even to Sacred Scripture in the vernacular – did the Church ever make the ludicrous claim that these good, simple, but unlearned souls could ever annul their marriages on the basis that they lacked sufficient formation?
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/the-secret-to-holy-indifference/4810/
ON GROWING IN HOLINESS
To practice the second counsel, which concerns mortification, and profit by it, you should engrave this truth on your heart.
And it is that you have not come to [the monastery] for any other reason than to be worked and tried in virtue; you are like the stone that must be chiseled and fashioned before being set in the building.
Thus you should understand that those who are in [the monastery] are craftsmen placed there by God to mortify you by working and chiseling at you.
Some will chisel with words, telling you what you would rather not hear; others by deed, doing against you what you would rather not endure; others by their temperament, being in their person and in their actions a bother and annoyance to you; and others by their thoughts, neither esteeming nor feeling love for you.
You ought to suffer these mortifications and annoyances with inner patience, being silent for love of God and understanding that you did not enter [the religious life] for any other reason than for others to work you in this way, and so you become worthy of heaven.
If this was not your reason for entering [the religious state,] you should not have done so, but should have remained in the world to seek your comfort, honor, reputation, and ease.
St John of the Cross
Pascendi Dominici Gregis dealt masterfully with the whole system of heresies that is “Modernism” and its opposition to the Deposit of Faith, indeed its opposition to the fact of an immutable Deposit of Faith. If the Bishops and heads of Orders had done what Pope Pius X had ordered them to do, we would not be seeing the results of contamination of the Church to the Papacy. PDG is a masterclass in the evil philosophy of Pope Francis and its aims to extinguish the Catholic Faith.
The charge is on!
“On August 7, 2015, Bishop Marcus Büchel of Sankt Gallen (Switzerland), in a letter to all “employees who work in pastoral care”, made appalling statements regarding homosexuality and Church teaching on sexuality in general. His central thesis: It is of no consequence what sexual orientation one practices, as long as this is done in a “responsible” manner… On top of that, Bishop Markus Buchel is the head of the Swiss Bishops’ conference!
His ideas about sexuality Bishop Buchel expresses as follows: “Human relationships have many dimensions, because each person carries within himself several dimensions. One of them is sexuality. To advance a person’s well-being, what is decisive is not so much one’s heterosexual or homosexual inclination, but rather the responsible use of sexuality and of all dimensions present in a relationship (such as attentiveness, care, respect, or faithfulness). We as faithful Catholics in particular may certainly rely on the conscience of each individual with respect to this matter. Let us be happy about every kind of relationship in which the partners accept each other [or “themselves” —Transl.] as equal, valuable, beloved children of God, who respect the dignity of the other and advance the well-being of the person!”
Regarding the biblical testimony on homosexuality, Bishop Buchel writes: “Our knowledge today about homosexuality as a disposition rather than a freely-chosen sexual orientation was not even known at the time of the Bible.”
Bishop Buchel is calling for a new sexual morality, in particular as regards homosexuality: “Thus we as Church must consciously face the historical baggage in dealing with homosexuality and find a new, appropriate language that does justice to the issue and to human dignity.”
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/#.VdBUu7Kqqkr
This is satanic material from that Swiss bishop. He is a worker for Satan. Sexual relating of any kind with a person of the same sex is gravely evil and a perversion of our nature. Man has two sexes, male and female, and is, necessarily heterosexual. There is no such thing, objectively, as “a homosexual person” – that it the false thesis of a positivist, atheistic, naturalist, amoral philosophy. Pascendi Dominici Gregis describes and exposes such a wicked philosophy that is always against the objective truth of Faith and reason.
LOL – concilliar life-time achievement award.
“what [bergoglio] proposes here is nothing short of welcoming souls to hell…” God bless you, Louie, for saying a truth. The whiplash’ll come.
–
Franks says eeether, God says either, you say civil divorce, God says death…eether, either…Conciliar, Catholic, let’s call the whole thing ooooofff.
–
PS. Brilliant point that what the Conciliarist deem ‘irreconcilable’, thinking Catholics understand as…entirely reconcilable.
–
PPS. “this is not catechisis….it’s catastrophic” – again LOL – but also…this should become a sound bite for anyone who really gives (or pretends) to give a Catholic cookie. EVERYONE who supports the separation of oneself or others from God’s plain given Catholic truth…”Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” Romans 1:32
–
False-‘pope’ Frank has a swathe of disciples promulgating the LIE that we should BE the sin. (who cares what jorge believes…we can only judge by what he says and does)
–
Catholics for many centuries were full of CATHOLIC REALITY in their souls, minds and poor bodies…brilliant, colourful, and very very faulty human beings…who NEVER misunderstood “WHAT GOD WANTS”.
Michael Voris won’t blame the pope, but will say he has bad advisers.
I don’t really know what MV thinks, these days. What’s certain is that VII and the N.O. are the root at what continue’s to be ‘to blame’.
If I recall, the pope has asked for annulments to be free and even made some mention about them having some relationship to a ‘sacrament’. Tell that to the children permanently affected…
Well, said – the essential components of marriage (natural) are not just known from Revelation but from reason.
I am pretty much letting what he says, especially ‘off the cuff’ slip on by. But the obvious machinations of the first sin-nod and the deliberate orchestrating was most disturbing. Also most distressing is the people he chooses and elevates and calls to Rome for ‘expert’ advice–you know from heretics, atheists, Hollywood types, pro-abortion mayors and others, etc. That is most scandalous right there.
But I think Our Lord will only let this go so far and if the present pope dares to officially promulgate heresy, his life will be required of him. But the covert pushing of heresy without the ‘official’ stamp is bad. And people who want the broad and wide path are happy to embrace it….and thus many are in mortal danger because of our very bad shepherds. It is hard to know how many are of the masonic bent or of the sod0mite bent. Or both.
Hey guys, just to clear the air: my only concern was a seemingly blanket statement inferring condemnation that those with annulments and new marriages are guilty of the sin of adultery when the Church decides these on a case by case basis. I took In Hoc’s statement “who obtains a phony ‘annulment'”, as across the board, and that was wrong of me. Sorry. I may also have been wrong to mention invincible ignorance, (like gasoline on a fire), but there are valid grounds for annulment, and have been for a long time. Even if 99% of the annulments are wrongly decided, (of which I’m not inclined to disagree), there would be 1% that are valid. The Pope throwing out 50% may or may not be statistically valid, and open for discussion, especially with his pattern of behavior which seems like: look at what’s being abused & abuse them further. To further our understanding of interpretation of the stats on tribunal annulments of which one highly orthodox and highly placed reader told the author, “I read your piece with care, and am at last persuaded that the situation is not as catastrophic as I had feared.” I offer this interesting study:
http://www.canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm
Lynda, thanks for your examples – they are right on.
That’s the point, though. We wail because Burke and Schneider are not doing anything when all we have to go on are semi-heretical statements, leading souls to hell with the complicity of those souls, and what appears to be a personal failure in the Faith on the part of this pope.
–
I agree that he is wreaking havoc in Holy Mother Church, but we must wait until there is something concrete for Burke et al to get their teeth into.
While we’re on the topic of “seductive words of Satan” :
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/08/did-cardinal-maradiaga-popes-key.html
The blog “Vox Cantoris” is wondering if Cardinal Maradiaga’s Twitter-account was hacked, [or maybe we should say they’re hoping?] as it has posted this statement:
“Authentic pastoral accompanyment means always walking with the person and knowing that whatever road they walk it always leads to heaven.”
__
The Church teaches, as Pope Gregory XVI wrote in his encyclical Mirari Vos on August 15, 1832:
13. ..indifferentism- This perverse opinion -spread ..by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. ..
— drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs.. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.”
We were talking about this in our household just yesterday. The other member of my marriage (to whom I am irrevocably yoked!) suggested perhaps Voris is playing to his middle – he does not want to alienate traditional Catholics so he hammers every bishop who steps out of line, and he doesn’t want to completely cut himself off from the secular media scrum because after all he is a ‘journalist’ – it’s the very soft middle that he plays to. A very uncomfortable spot to be in when the whole shebang is collapsing around his/our ears.
–
Me, I’m going to plant myself firmly with THE CHURCH.
Yes, there is NO room for ‘the children’ in a discussion of marriage. The sins of divorce, with or without attempted re-marriage, contraception/abortion, abandonment of spouse and children, etc. all are objective evils in themselves. They are mortally sinful. To die in the state of mortal sin, even one, means hellfire.
–
Modernists drag the little teary-eyed kiddies into the mix to divert our eyes from mortal sin. We must not let them do this! Yes, divorce is bad for children, but mortal sin for mum and dad is much, much, much worse.
Yes, well said indeed. A wise priest told me that anyone over the age of 16 has the duty to know, or to find out what the Church teaches – and as said above, this wanting to know the truth is what our intellect was designed for!
A well formed conscience knows when a marriage is not a marriage and when a marriage was entered into falsely. Now, are there many well formed consciences around in the Church today? No. But the invincible ignorance excuse doesn’t hold either. Thanks for your clarification, Mike. You are right – I’m sometimes hesitant to comment without putting in many qualifiers because any little lapse or ‘something left out’ will get jumped on!!
Yes. The litmus test might be to imagine that peasant man and his wife centuries ago. Most learned a rudimentary faith from their parents, supplemented by the Holy Mass, stained-glass ‘lessons,’ and preaching/teaching by the parish priest.
–
Their faith would have revolved around the family, based on The Holy Family. They would have known the difference between right and wrong.
–
What else was needed? Now we have supposed intellectuals shovelling high-sounding excrement down the throats of very willing ‘faithful.’
–
Here’s a good exercise: take the Apostles Creed. Write it down in list form, each declaration at a time. Ask where each declaration comes from (hint: Denzinger’s!), ask on whose authority do we believe these declarations, and for love of Whom do we attempt to live what these declarations indicate for our lives.
–
Again, pretty simple stuff.
I think we’d better face facts. What Maradiaga says is what most people inside, and outside, the Church believe.
–
How can we reach people if we can’t get them to THINK of what’s being said? Reason is a gift that lifts us up above the merely animal. We have lost that gift for the most part. Maybe that’s why so many act like animals these days.
I’d like to see the comments made by the Pope and referred to by Louie, published. If the comments allegedly made by Francis have been accurately recounted by Louie – then the publication of the Francis comments ought to be done. Then those who are Catholic can read the comments and read the context of the comments and thereafter can decide for themselves.
I have no reason to assume that the comments recounted by Louie are wrong. I’d prefer to read for myself what Francis had to say before commenting further.
I’m sorry friend.
I insist – the “50%” number thrown around by Francis has no chance of being “statistically valid”.
One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what the basic duties inherent in marriage are:
procreation of children and the mutual support of the spouses, as well as the Christian education of their children. One in fact doesn’t even need to be literate to understand these responsibilities, and these have been well understood (at least implicitly) by the unlearned, illiterate people, who have comprised the greater part of Christendom for the past 2000 years.
It’s perplexing (even troubling) why you (apparently) suggest via the comment of a certain “reader” that “the situation is not as catastrophic as I had feared”.
Huh??
lol “we have supposed intellectuals shovelling high-sounding excrement down the throats of very willing ‘faithful.”
Sounds like Fr Barron to me… 😉
I must say that from my past experience teaching young kids 18-22 (mostly) at university level, the ability of people to evaluate critically and think independently has been for all effects and purposes disappeared.
Very good news for the powers-that-be for thrusting their godless, amoral, sodomitic agenda down people’s dumbed down, seriously darkened intellect and mushy-like brain.
Here ya go Paul:
http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/audiences/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150805_udienza-generale.html
As with all modernism, the errors are slipped in with a heaping dose of sweet syruppy lovey verbage. Your average catholic won’t think anything wrong with it, and in fact, will heartily approve.
What you have quoted does not prove that a material heretic who is ignorant through his own fault is indeed a formal heretic. To be outside the Church you must be a formal heretic. Your qoutes only prove that he has sinned for not seeking the truth. Here is an example: let’s say to merit a death penalty (aka being separated from the church) a person must commit first degree murder (aka formal heresy). Now, what would happen if a person drove recklessly and killed someone? Would they merit the death penalty? No. But is it the person’s fault that he killed someone? Yes but there was not a positive intent to kill and therefore no first degree murder. To be a formal heretic you must intend to deny a teaching of the Church.
Thanks CraigV for posting that link. I’ll clear some time to read it closely keeping in mind Louie’s excellent analysis.
Thanks again.
P.s. this is directed at Dumb Ox. I have one question. Why do sedevecantists always dismiss Suarez’s opinion? The Church has never had an official stance on the question of the heretical pope and theologians are not unanimous on the issue.
With there definition of grounds for an annulment such as “immaturity”, I would be willing to bet that 50% of marriages are not valid which means 50% are adulterous. What a joke, though a sad one, indeed!
This is one of the few things that I have personally experienced. My parents separated when I was about 4. My mother refused to agree to a divorce, so my father relocated to CA and shacked-up with a woman he met there. He died suddenly 5 years later. My mother never remarried and raised us three kids as best she could. Throughout it all, she remained a good and faithful Catholic, receiving communion each Sunday. I attended Catholic school so the priests and nuns knew what our situation at home was. At no time were we ever ostracized or made to feel unwelcome. The people the Sin-Nod keeps referring to are the folks who want the privileges of being a Catholic in good standing while rejecting the Church’s teaching. This is one of Jesus’ so-called “Hard Teachings.” Hard it may be, but it beats eternity in Hell.
After you re-read it show me where Ferrara states that Schneider’s justification for recognizing the SSPX is not their Catholicity, but their recognition of all the heretic bishops and popes you all are complainin’ about here + the legitimacy of the ‘new order’ ‘sacraments’ (i.e. baptism which doesn’t even mention ‘faith’, holy orders which doesn’t even consecrate priest’s hands, ‘mass’ which doesn’t even consecrate Body and Blood of Christ, etc) and ‘ecumenicism’ (seems to me SSPXers who think they joined a ‘resistance’ actually recognize ALL aspects of the church they left (what a joke!)!)– Schneider also manages to drag the apostles (who all died martyrs except for St. John the Evangelist who wrote: “Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.” Apoc 22:15) through VC2’s latest sodomy/fornication/adultery hell fest:
“when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books, this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly lose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-there-are.html
I, for one, am beginning to wonder who is paying for the ‘apostolates’ of Ferrara, Vennari, and Michael Matt. All were always vouching for Fr. Gruner – who ends up being buried by Fellay (SSPX). If Fatima Network is an organization of the SSPX, why doesn’t it come clean? I for one would like to know if I’m contributing to the SSPX. I’d also like to know how much money go to Ferrara and Vennari (and Michael Matt) & probably Louie Verrechio. Who is “The National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada”: “Fatima Center is a registered Trade Name of The National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada – Charitable Registration Number: 10808 9764 RR0001 Copyright ©2015 The National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada – Privacy Policy
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/faq02.asp
It seems Ferrara is a lawyer (like the one in the gospel today). He interprets the law not to serve Jesus Christ but the masters who pay him. The Mike -n- Chris has the outraged Voris Vortex schtick where they wring their hands about how awful everything is and then conclude: Do nothing but support us and buy our newspapers. Tradition in Action has good piece about how Schneider (and Burke) are part of the false right (i.e. the vatican is controlling the reaction). But seems false right should now include Remnant, CFN, Fatima Network, SSPX as well as Voris, Catholic Culture, Catholic Answers, etc.
In Hoc,
People don’t need to be literate or learned to be able to reason or understand and accept the authority of their pastors or priest in the olden days. However, further down in these comments you refer to your experience teaching at the university level that, “the ability of people [18-22] to evaluate critically and think independently has been for all effects and purposes disappeared.” And you appear to blame the authority for “people’s dumbed down, seriously darkened intellect and mushy-like brain.” If you peruse the link I supplied you’ll find stated that, “Canon 1095, for all its flaws, is still the best tool for addressing cases in which drug and alcohol abuse, physical or sexual abuse, psychological and psychiatric anomalies, and a variety of other mental and emotional conditions have seriously impacted parties prior to marriage.” Sounds to me that you seem to be very close in agreement with the Church’s instructions on what to consider regarding a valid marriage.
Couldn’t agree more.
I meant this previous reply of mine to be under MMC’s comment.
TWN,
I find this idea of manipulating a false right interesting. It would be devilish clever. Please will you provide the link to the piece in TIA which you refer to? This might well explain why so many prominent “traditionalists” vigorously denounce the NO, yet cling to it like cat poo to a blanket.
Dear Dumb_ox,
De Lugo would seem to support what you have said Concerning “ipso facto loss of office”:
De Lugo: “…Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that
there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to
be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by
no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. For if it could
be established in some other way, given that the doctrine is well known,
given the kind of person involved and given the other circumstances,
that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was
opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this
fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can
serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the
opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the
Church. If he knew the subject through books and conciliar definitions
much better than he could know it by the declarations of someone
admonishing him then there would be no reason to insist on a further
warning for him to become pertinacious against the Church.” (De Lugo,
disp.XX, sect.IV,n.l57-158). (See also: Diana, resol.36; Vermeersch,
pg.245; Noldin, vol.i, “Compl. de Poenis Eccl.”, pg.21; Regatillo, pg. 508)
“The Church has never had an official stance on the question of the heretical pope…” ?
1. Please read Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio – very official.
2. the topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is
to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope,
being deposed by God Himself.
“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is
false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The
supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article
of temporal government or cover for heresy.” (The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241)
3. There has never been a heretical Pope in the history of the Church up until Vatican II:
The First Vatican Council declared, “this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error.” The fathers of the council made this statement after finding forty historical papal errors, meaning that popes can err, but not against the Faith as it’s
defined.
The following article is actually linked to from TIA’s 8/13 piece on Schneider (“Schneider Speaks out of
Both Sides of His Mouth” – this site only allows two links w/out blocking for moderator approval)
Conclusion: “These are some samples of the compromises of the “great hero” (Schneider) who is charming so many conservatives and even traditionalists. In my opinion he is clearly a false-right who has been put onstage by the progressivist Vatican to be sure that it controls both the left and the right reactions at the upcoming October Synod.”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/177bev04_27_2015.htm
Another thing that makes me suspect Schneider working both ends against the middle is that when he came to DC to speak on “the liturgy” 2/14/15 (touted (and sponsored) by “traditional” groups) – he was hosted at the parish run by canon lawyer Charles V. Antonicelli JCL, JD (Episcopal Vicar for Canonical Services/Judicial Vicar, First Instance Tribunal Archdiocese of Washington–annulments anyone?) and where barry (hickey’s Lori lookalike spouse secretary, but also mccarrick’s (read all about “the family affair” at whispers in the loggia)) Knestout [in April 2007, he was named moderator of the curia. In this role, as the “chief of staff” for the archdiocese’s central offices, he assists Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl in managing and overseeing all administrative affairs – bio from ADW site] is in residence.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/bishop-schneider-to-visit-us-speak-on.html
Thanks. That is an interesting quote.
TWN, Thank you very much. The TIA article is revealing regarding Bishop Schneider and would apply to Cardinal Burke as well. Quite an eye opener.
And tell everyone it’s a “Bad Translation” by Fr Rosica.