Having learned very well from his predecessor, Pope John Paul the Apologizer, Pope Francis, with zucchetto in hand, groveled before a gathering of Waldensian Evangelicals in Turin yesterday:
On the part of the Catholic Church, I ask your forgiveness, I ask it for the non-Christian and even inhuman attitudes and behavior that we have showed you. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us!
It wasn’t exactly clear what offenses the pope had in mind, but given the tenor of his pontificate thus far, one imagines that the cause of his contrition may very well have been nothing more than the audaciousness of Pope Innocent III, who dared to send the Poor Catholics religious order on a mission to convert the Waldensians; that they may renounce their heresies and return to the one true Church.
In any case, speaking to the assembly of heretics, Pope Francis said (as reported, in Italian, on the Holy See website):
The unity which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit does not mean uniformity. Our brothers are united by a common origin but are not identical to each other. This is clear in the New Testament, where, despite being called brothers all those who shared the same faith in Jesus Christ, you realize that not all Christian communities, of which they were part, had the same style, or an identical internal organization. Even within the same small community could be seen different charisms (cf. 1 Cor 12-14), and even in announcing the Gospel there was diversity and sometimes contrasts (cf. Acts 15.36 to 40).
This isn’t the first time this pope has tickled the ears of the heretics with the idea that “unity does not mean uniformity,” but it just isn’t true in the sense that he’s laboring to present it.
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers … And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. (Acts 2:42, 4:32)
Clearly, it is not the case that we are “united by a common origin;” rather, it is in holding fast to “the doctrine,” otherwise known as the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, that a “multitude of believers” can be of “but one heart and one soul.”
Pope Francis cannot bring himself to preach in such manner, and the reason is obvious; he simply does not believe that doctrine is all that important relative to unity.
So what does Pope Francis believe about doctrine?
We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom. (Evangelii Gaudium)
He believes that doctrine is in some way opposed to “life and wisdom.”
Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed. (ibid.)
He believes that doctrine is somehow opposed to “pastoral ministry.”
For those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion. But in fact such variety serves to bring out and develop different facets of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel. (ibid.)
He believes that doctrine somehow obscures “the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel.”
A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. (ibid.)
He believes that doctrine somehow closes “the door to grace.”
In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. (ibid.)
He believes that doctrine does not serve “the concrete needs of the present time.”
All of this adds up to the reason why Pope Francis is so quick to dismiss the Waldensians’ (and other heretics’) rejection of Catholic doctrine as little more than “differences” in “style, internal organization, and charisms,” such that the bonds of brotherhood somehow remain.
According to Pope Francis:
One of the main fruits that the ecumenical movement has already fostered over the years is the rediscovery of the brotherhood that unites all those who believe in Jesus Christ and have been baptized in His name. This bond is not based simply on human criteria, but on the radical sharing of the founding experience of the Christian life: the encounter with the love of God that is revealed to us in Jesus Christ, and the transforming action of the Holy Spirit to assist us on the path of life. The rediscovery of this brotherhood allows us to grasp the deep bond that already unites us, despite our differences.
You see, for Pope Francis, having simply been baptized is enough to establish an unbreakable bond of brotherhood between the Church, her true sons and daughters, and those who fail to “persevere in the doctrine of the Apostles” (cf Acts 2:42).
This, however, is a radical departure from the Church’s understanding that those who refuse the one true faith that comes to us from God through the sacred magisterium are not to be considered as “brothers,” but as a people so detached from the Christian community as to be considered “heathens and publicans.”
As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)
One might argue that Pope Francis differs from his pre-conciliar predecessors only insofar as tactics are concerned, as if Pope Pius XII and his predecessors going all the way back to Innocent III and beyond, were needlessly harsh in their approach to the heretics, and therefore guilty of establishing barriers that rendered their entrance into “full communion” less likely, even if only inadvertently.
After all, Pope Francis did tell the Waldensian Evangelicals:
The rediscovery of this brotherhood allows us to grasp the deep bond that already unites us, despite our differences. It is a communion still on the way – and the unity is on the way – a communion, with prayer, with continuous personal and communitarian conversion, with the help of theologians, we hope, trusting in the action of the Holy Spirit, full and visible communion in truth and charity can come to be.
Don’t be fooled by the pope’s alleged “hope” for unity.
If nothing else is entirely clear, it is obvious that Pope Francis, given his negative view of doctrine as demonstrated above, believes that “full and visible communion” can be achieved in some way other than “the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it,” to avail themselves of “the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ” (cf Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI).
That presumably is why he finds it so easy to downplay the doctrines of the faith when speaking with heretics of a “communion” as yet to come.
If all that has been said thus far isn’t disturbing enough, Pope Francis once again demonstrated, in his address to the Waldensians, just how willing he is to ply the protestant trade of twisting Sacred Scripture in order to accommodate his views.
For instance, he cited 1 Corinthians 12-14 as if to give the impression that the Waldensians are primarily distinguished from faithful Catholics by their differing charisms, such as they are describe by St. Paul therein.
This is an egregious act of hubris given the fact that the very reference cited serves as an indictment of Pope Francis and his unwillingness to teach the doctrine of the faith with clarity:
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation or in knowledge or in prophecy or in doctrine? Even things without life that give sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction of sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air. (1 Cor 14:6-9)
He also cites, and just as falsely so, Acts 15:36-40 in order to suggest that the “sharp contention” described therein between St. Paul and St. Barnabas, one of the Twelve, is in some way comparable to the relationship between the Waldensian heretics and the Catholic Church.
In no way can it be argued that these great Saints were engaged in some manner of doctrinal dispute, as if one or the other of them had adopted a heresy. The very suggestion would be laughable if it wasn’t coming from the lips of a pope.
In the present case, however, it is no laughing matter.
With every passing day, it is becoming ever more clear that those who take the ramblings of Pope Francis to heart, whether they come in the form of a sermon, a speech, an interview, or even an encyclical letter, are certain to lose the Catholic faith. It’s not a question of if, but when.
It’s also becoming increasingly clear that something must be done to reign-in this pontificate that has been nothing short of a wholesale disaster thus far, as all signs point to the fact that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
This is the same pope who said that his presence during the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in October was “a guarantee of orthodoxy,” and I think we all recall what happened. (If not, take a look at the midterm relatio on the Holy See website.)
Now, we can look forward (provided the Church is not mercifully delivered from the horrifying prospect) of Pope Francis presiding over the Ordinary Synod of Bishops in less than four months.
Where o’ where are the true Princes of Holy Church at this moment in time when the Chief Shepherd is so very obviously a ravenous wolf?
He’s certainly a heretic. The only question remaining is whether he’s a material or formal heretic.
Could we lay people in addition to prayer and fasting start a petition to the Bishops to stand up to the Pope? I just don’t like sitting here watching a modern day Judas try to destroy the Church. It is like being handcuffed and watching a man burn down your house.
yes! We have to do something. We need to somehow get a petition going or organize a formal resistance effort against this evil man. Maybe there is a bishop, any bishop, whom we could unite around? Like an Archbishop Lefebvre figure? Lord Help Us! Great analogy by the way.
That was an excellent article…thank you
Brother Alexis Bugnolo of the From Rome Blog has a petition started and it can be found on his June 22 article …Pope Francis blames Catholics for the persecution of the Waldensians.
Excellent question, Louie!!! How long can we survive with Bergoglio attacking the Catholic faith and Catholics who are trying to hold on as the avalanche falls on our heads. While it is comforting to know that we still have at least a small number of Bishops who appear to be “on our side”, this small comfort can never and will never solve the problem of the tragedy of Vatican II. Let us remember that Bergoglio is a “product” of 50 years of false “catholicsm”. Every time Bergoglio opens his mouth, he is a scandal and embarrassment . Where are these “Princes of the Church” who supposedly are friends of Tradition? When will they take decisive action (not just words!) They cannot solve the misery of Vatican II because they are still functioning within the Vatican II “church”! Get out and really make a difference. Words are cheap—-Action, Action, Action!!!!! On our part, prayer, penance and fasting. Let the “good” bishops know we are waiting for them to DO SOMETHING!!!!
Here it is: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition2CardinalsReFrancis
You should look through the comments section more carefully, friend 😉 (this was brought up in the last post)!
Here is such a petition to the college of cardinals (who are the ones responsible for deposing a formally heretical pope):
I believe the only bishops in the entire Catholic Church who could (in theory) denounce Bergoglio’s heresies publically and explicitly are those of the SSPX, as well as Bishop Williamson and Bp Faure (recently consecrated by Bp Williamson) – precisely because they have no attachment whatsoever to the “NO Church”, to Vatican II, and so on…
I’m not counting on the other bishops (Card Burke, Bp Schneider etc), precisely because as “My2cents” points above: “They cannot solve the misery of Vatican II because they are still functioning within the Vatican II “church”! ”
And Bp Schneider is already on record as declaring that he’s waiting for a future papacy to declare judgment on the synod and the current papacy, & meanwhile takes a convenient escape hatch by declaring that “no one may judge the see of Peter”.
Humanly speaking, I think there is no solution. Bp Fellay is no Arch Lefebvre (all those hard years in the missions in Africa toughened him up for his later fights and struggles), and even if he were, the NO bishops wouldn’t join with him.
How many bishops joined Arch Lefebvre in his condemnation of JP II for the Assisi travesty? Only Bp de Castro Mayer, also later “excommunicated” at the ’88 consecrations. The apostasy has only snowballed since then.
Having said that, I would hope that at least the SSPX bishops and any other ones of good will on October would form some sort of “Counter-synod” exposing the beautiful Catholic teaching on chastity and the family, if anything, at least to remind the world’s catholics of the true doctrine, and as a show of unity against the robber Oktober Sin-Nod!
The Church has been led by heretics and apostates since Paul VI. Francis is simply the most brazen and obvious of them.
According to Pope Paul IV’s “Bullcum ex Apostolatus Officio” of February 15, 1159:
#6. In addition, (by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define>) that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, OR EVEN THE ROMAN PONTIFF, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into SOME HERESY:
(I) the promotion or elevation, even if shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless.
There is a petition begun. I’ll try to locate the web address and post it here.
Frances was likely groveling over what history records as the Church’s many unsuccessful attempts to “wipe out” the Waldensians by re-conversion, starvation, Crusade and burning–between the 1200’s and 1500’s before they joined with the Reformation. His attempts to whitewash their heresies as minor differences -like those between charisms of the Holy Spirit, to us represents another show of indifferentism to their rejection of the Faith, and the loss of souls that accompanies it.
Their founder, Waldes of Lyons- likely reminds him of himself, being a wealthy merchant who studied the Faith a bit and, partly in reaction the to the splendor of the medieval Church -decided to live according to the Gospel call to Christian perfection. After proviiding for his wife and daughters, he took a vow of poverty in 1176–creating a great” stir” in the area. Imitators came to join him.
Problems arose when they began going about preaching major doctrinal errors in their ignorance . The Archbishop of Lyons prohibited them from preaching–at the 3rd General Lateran Council in 1179, but the Waldenses DISREGARDED that prohibition claiming ” “obedience is due rather to God than to man”.
Pope Lucius III then included them among the heretics against whom he issued a Bull of excommunication at Verona in 1184.
-They were devoid of theological training, denied purgatory, indulgences, and prayers for the dead; refused to take oaths, and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful–so war and the death penalty were condemned by them.
They were divided into two groups-Friends who stayed in the world and provided all their support, and – the “Perfect” – who, bound by the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience to superiors- wandered about from place to place preaching; –not allowed to do manual labor. –ANY MARRIED PEOPLE who desired to join the “perfect” WERE PERMITTED TO DISSOLVE THEIR UNION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THEIR CONSORT.
” Friends” remained in union with the Catholic Church and continued to receive its sacraments with the exception of penance, for which they sought out, whenever possible, one of their own ministers.
Minor differences like charisms?
Dear In Hoc,
Are you saying you’d REJECT an attempt by those like C. Burke or Bp. Schneider to have Francis removed?
“The False Prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit church. Christ’s Church [the Catholic Church] will be one. And the False Prophet will create the other. The false church will be worldly ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches. And religions forming some type of global association. A world parliament of churches. It will be emptied of all divine content and will be the mystical body of the Antichrist. The mystical body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from among our bishops.”
Not my words but Bishop fulton sheen’s words
This is only my opinion !
Prophecy must be fullfilled therefore certain things must happen the Antichrist will make his apperence
I signed it.
I don’t think 100,000,000,000 signatures (or Rosaries for that matter) would move this man one inch off his positions. He thinks he’s right and he’s leading the Church where ‘the spirit’ wants him to lead it.
We know who that ‘spirit’ is even if Francis doesn’t. The question is still: who will stand for Christ and His Church against the repudiation of the Faith by this man?
IF, I think In Hoc was saying he does not expect any effort by Burke or Schneider to have Francis removed. Both these good men have spoken out as clearly as they can without causing schism – which they will NEVER do. Neither man wants to act as a rallying point for disgusted Catholics.
We look back fondly to ages where courageous Bishops would act as lightening rods and would lead groups in protest. Are those days over? Perhaps.
Yes. And in hundreds of instances the Catholic people took matters into their own hands and tore some of these heretics limb from limb. Not saying they were right, just pointing out the depth of the horror of heresy against The Faith felt by Catholics in general.
Lots more like the above in “Cathedral and Crusade” by Henri Daniel-Rops, chapter XIII ‘Heresy, The Rift in Christendom. Rops is one of the few real historians who tells the truth about the Church in history. (P.S., we were the good guys.)
Thanks for putting Bishop Sheen’s prophesy up. Where did you see this quote?
You are correct, but do we not know there will be many anti-Christs before the final one? What we see throughout history is the softening up of Catholics gradually over many years so they will readily accept this false Church. I think that is what is happening now, and it is speeding up.
While Bergoglio is in an apologetic mood, perhaps he could apologize to Catholics throughout the world for being the worst Pope in history. Now, that’s an apology that makes sense!!!!
Just spotted this on Radical Catholic’s Blog, one in a long series by Fr. John H. Stapleton. This quote if from the section called “The Consistent Believer.” O how I wish Francis would read and understand this:
“The intolerance of the Church towards error, the natural position of One who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude, makes her forbid her children to read, or listen to, heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truth by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers. And whatever outsiders may think of the correctness of his belief and religious principles, they cannot have two opinions as to the logic and consistency of this stand he takes. They may hurl at him all the choice epithets they choose for being a slave to superstition and erroneous creeds; but they must give him credit for being consistent in his belief; and consistency in religious matters is too rare a commodity these days to be made light of.
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fullness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit. And if he believes, as he should and does believe, that revealed truth comes, and can come, only by way of external authority, and not by way of private judgment and investigation, he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature and listening to all kinds of heretical sermons. If he does not this, he is false to his principles; he contradicts himself by accepting and not accepting an infallible Church; he knocks his religious props from under himself and stands – nowhere. The attitude of the Catholic, therefore, is logical and necessary. Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God’s word and interprets it in the true and only sense?”
IMAGINE!! No seeking after truth, because we already have it! That makes me dizzy it’s so TRUE! No asking heretics what they think. No seeking advice from atheist scientists about our relationship with the earth. No discussion of the ‘development’ of doctrine. No discussion of sin with a view to changing our minds about it. No saying we’re sorry for upholding the Truth against error, even if we had to rid ourselves of dangerous wolves among our sheep.
Ah! The sheer joy of possessing Truth and being able to humbly thank Our Loving Father in Heaven for allowing us to know it.
“Being handcuffed and watching a man burn down your house” —– excellent analogy!
“What could possibly be more dangerous than a wolf in sheep’s clothing?”
The question you posed with the picture you have at the top of this post are absolutely CHILLING!
…….As is the whole horrific situation.
Thank you for laying it all out clearly once again and for calling on the True Princes to recognize that “the Chief Shepherd is so very obviously a ravenous wolf.”
Thank you for the quote and link…an excellent summary indeed.
Bergoglio was elected on 3/13/13 at 3:13 pm NYC time —– where the UN one world order headquarters is located.
I was looking at my watch at the time to see if they would actually announce the name at 3:13 to give their signal to the world that their man was finally elected. A friend of mine was also looking at her watch, too. (We both had our suspicions, already recognizing the strangeness of the date 3/13/13.) The person paused momentarily just prior to the announcement of the new ‘pope’ as if ‘waiting’ for the exact moment. When our cell phone clocks changed to 3:13 they announced Bergoglio at the exact moment. ‘They’ (ie; slaves of satan) have this thing about numbers — Part of their signals to each other. 13 is one of ‘their’ favorites.
Of course, we know that Our Lady has Her signals and signs, too, to all who have ears to listen. She appeared on the 13th of the months from May to October, 1917, excluding the month of August. Our Lord is Lord of ALL NUMBERS. And He does reveal things to us at times because He loves us. He lets us in on their little signals they give to each other, if it is for His greater glory. Who knows why my friend and I ‘saw’ that? Maybe so I could tell all of you, Her children.
He is ‘their’ man, for sure!
“I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your offspring and Hers.” (Genesis 3:15)
Another friend of mine just recently returned from Quito, Equador, where Our Lady of Good Success appeared to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres from 1594 till 1634. Mother Mariana died 3 times in her lifetime. Twice she was resurrected. After her first death, she was asked by Our Lord and Our Lady if she would be willing to go back to earth to suffer for the people of the second half of the twentieth century. She answered ‘yes.’ She suffered horrific pains and torments for US! What a fantastic intercessor Our Lady has provided for us. Our Lady asks to be invoked under the title of Our Lady of Good Success during this time of great darkness in Her Son’s Church. She promises Her intervention when all else seems lost —- Just like Our Lady of Fatima’s triumph of Her Immaculate Heart was promised, though it be late.
Below is a blog of one of the recent pilgrims to Quito, Ecuador, to see Our Lady of Good Success.
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!
Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, pray for us!
Another good website for Our lady of Good Success is below:
Also, Tradition in Action has lots of good information and books for sale, as well.
Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres is incorrupt.
You may see her incorrupt body on the above website blog, I think. Although I cannot vouch for everything on the website blog that I gave above (because I do not know this man or his blog) I like the info he has about his recent
pilgrimage to see Our Lady of Good Success.
Mt. 9; 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.
May our Blessed Lord, the one True Shepherd, please come to the aid of the harassed and helpless sheep.
No… I’m not sure which sentence from my comment led you to think that… Barbara has got it right.
Dear Munda Cor Meum,
We’re sure your prayer speaks for many hearts, and were struck by how much today’s 1st Reading from the The Liturgy of Hours [On this Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist] seems a response to it.
– Jeremiah expresses his feelings of inadequacy to God, because of his youth and inexperience. But the Lord answered:
“Say not, “I am too young”. To whomever I send you, you shall go; whatever I command you, you shall speak. Have no fear before them, because I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord….his mouth is touched by God and he is sent to all the nations:
“Gird your loins; stand up and tell them all that I command you. Be not crushed on their account, as though I would leave you crushed before them; for it is I this day Who have made you a fortified city, a pillar of iron, a wall of brass, against the whole land: Against Judah’s kings and princes, against its priest and people. “They will fight against you, but not prevail over you, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.”
And in Luke’s Gospel, 1: 67ff. the people ask about St. John:
What.. think ye, shall this child be? For the hand of the Lord was with him. And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost; prophesied, saying: 8] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people: hath raised up an horn of salvation to us, in the house of David his servant: as He spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from the beginning: Salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us: To perform mercy to our fathers, and to remember his holy testament, The oath, which he swore to Abraham our father, that he would grant to us, That being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him without fear, In holiness and justice before him, all our days.
And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: To give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins: Through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high hath visited us: ] To enlighten them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death: to direct our feet into the way of peace.”
Sometimes it’s good to be reminded we are not the only sheep who have ever felt great longing for the fulfillment of God’s promises.
Words from Bp fulton sheen book “communism and the conscience of the west “printed 1948 pg 24/25
Barbara link to 4min vid
Also lots of other material to indicate francis as the false prophet at the website biblical false prophet . Com
I beleive what your saying answer is Genesis 3-15
3 mysteries 15 decades
Agree that the “unity which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit does not mean uniformity”, is the umpteenth lie from this affront to the legacy of the true Pontiffs. Consistantly Mr Bergoglio presents himself as a foil to the Perennial Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Mr Bergoglio and his confreres represent a consistent public record of contradiciton and contrariness with regard to the following truths:
“Now the chief truths which Christians ought to hold are those which the holy Apostles, the leaders and teachers of the faith [those dogmas and doctrine which must be believed], inspired by the Holy Ghost, have divided into the twelve Articles of the Creed. For having received a command from the Lord to go forth into the whole world, as His ambassadors, and preach the Gospel to every creature, they thought it advisable to draw up a formula of Christian faith, that all might think and speak the same thing, and that among those whom they should have called to the unity of the faith no schisms would exist, but that they should be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” Council of Trent.
“By reason of her [the Church’s] wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own Divine mission.” First Vatican Council, de Fide.
St Augustine: ‘O Sacrament of mercy, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!…The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church.”
“These three things [unity of faith, government and worship] must be taken together and formally: together, because unless taken together they do not show the Church one and whole; formally, because the material fact must adhere to the firm, stable, and constitutive principle of unity. So in its unity of faith, of hierarchy, and of worship, the Church stands as undivided in itself, and divided from anything else”. De Groot, J.V., O.P. Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica.
Eph 4: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in charity [to know, love and serve God], we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ.
“St. Ignatius (1st Cent), “They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins”… St. Justin (2nd cent): “No one is allowed to partake of this food, but he that believes our doctrines are true, and who has been baptized in the laver of regeneration for remission of sins, and lives up to what Christ has taught. For we take not these as common bread, and common drink, but in the same manner as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, being incarnate by the word of God, hath both flesh and blood for our salvation; so we are taught that this food, by which our flesh and blood are nourished, over which thanks have been given by the prayers in his own words, is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus”…Alexander (4th cent) “that seamless garment [which Mr Bergoglio abusively applied to fallen creation in his ‘ecocyclical’], which the murderers of Jesus Christ would not divide, these men [heretics] have dared to rip asunder”….Venerable Bede: “Whereas the tunic of Christ, by which the one true Catholic Church is prefigured, was seamless, and not to be divided.” Haydock NT commentary.
The heresy of Mr Bergoglio contradicts pretty much the entire teaching of Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, right down to Bergoglio’s distaste for the papacy – unless he can exploit people’s belief in the idea that Bergoglio is the ‘highest moral authority’ on the planet. “Jorge Mario Bergoglio is serving as an enabler for United States President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and every other pro-abortion, pro perversity statist politician, jurist, “educator” (and the word is used very lightly, of course), commentator, “scientist,” celebrity, legislator, and appointed government officials around the world. Bergoglio is using Laudato Si in the exact same manner that he has used last year’s “extraordinary synod on the family”…” http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/dance-dance-eco-jorge-part-one
PS. Re – where are the true princes? Given the almost total assent to heresy by the silence or outright vocal support from the ‘princes’, we have to look to the ordained ‘Knights’ of Holy Church who, from whatever roof top God gives them, clearly and vocally defend that Faith, denounce the wolf, and guide and protect the flock. http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-escape-from-the-novus-ordo-episode-5-liberal-and-conservative-novus-ordo/
Our dear friend, John Venneri nails Francis in this excellent article.
Quite eye-opening to read the connection of Francis to Boff, and other neo-pagans. This kind of loss of Faith has along history.
. As expected, THE SYNOD- PHASE II includes everything they tried the last time. But because the Pope and Vatican had backpedaled so hard, we didn’t expect to see the Return of the “No Breeding like Rabbits” sign.
“The general secretary of the Synod of Bishops noted that it makes reference to “the family and ecclesial accompaniment, the streamlining of procedures for causes for annulment, the integration of faithful in irregular situations, the eventual introduction of a penitential route, the pastoral problems regarding mixed marriages and disparities of worship, a well as questions related to
RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION, REDUCTION OF BIRTHS, adoption and fostering, respect for life from conception to natural end, and education of future generations.”
With “reduction of births” is on their list, something tells us it just got even harder for Our Lady to hold back the arm of that angel with the fiery sword pointed at the earth, and Father Amorth’s dire prophecy is looking more and more likely come October.
Our misreading. Glad to hear it. You’re both right, we’re not likely to hear anything more dramatic than we already have, unless one or both of them feel things go way too far at the Synod. The Holy Spirit IS still with us, even if the “bad guys” have tried to hijack His approval for their evil plans.
When God speaks, everyone will be forced to listen. He said so:
“Because with lies you have made the heart of the just to mourn, whom I have not made sorrowful: and have strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way, and live.  Therefore you shall not see vain things, nor divine divinations any more, and I will deliver my people out of your hand: and you shall know that I am the Lord. ” (Ezechiel 13: 23)
If my information is correct, there are approximately 5,000 Roman Catholic bishops in the world. How many would join in consecrating Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart if this Pope (I doubt it!) or a future Pope would obey our Lady’s request. Why don’t these Bishops petition the Pope to do just that. After all, this is the key to resolve this mess in the Church and in the entire world. Does anyone know if there ever was a petition like this. I’m sure Father Gruner was totally dedicated to initiating this plea to Rome. I signed the petition initiated by Brother Bugnolo, but like Barbara, I wonder what kind of an effect could it have on the likes of Bergoglio. We need Bishops to act like Bishops. We are in a state of necessity! Our Lady of Fatima, inspire our Bishops!
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
People also say Our Lord was Crucified on Friday the 13th, which is why it acquired its negativity.
And (Coincidentally?) in Ezecheiel 13:13 ff:
God punishes the lying prophets and destroys the fake wall they built that does not protect His city:
“Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Lo, I will cause a stormy wind to break forth in my indignation, and there shall be an overflowing shower in my anger: and great hailstones in my wrath to consume. And I will break down the wall that you have daubed with untempered mortar: and I will make it even with the ground, and the foundation thereof shall be laid bare: and it shall fall, and shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and you shall know that I am the Lord. And I will accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that daub it without tempering the mortar, and I will say to you: The wall is no more, and they that daub it are no more.”
in Isaiah 13:13
God describes how He will punish the pride of infidels and arrogancy of the mighty.
” For this I will trouble the heaven: and the earth shall be moved out of her place, for the indignation of the Lord of hosts, and for the day of his fierce wrath. “
Wow! How can one possibly not see that they are boldly introducing this new vocabulary of “reduction of births” as another new ‘noble’ goal to attain along with all the other things we are to consider noble such as so called “responsible procreation” (i.e planned parenthood through NFP that endorses one to separate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and education of children for Gods glory, from its secondary purpose of unity of the couple, during conjugal relations in order to “reduce births” and avoid having a child.), adoption and fostering, respect for life from conception to natural end, and education of future generations”. Of course adoption and fostering, respect for life from conception to natural end and education of future generations are noble things but not their poisonous definition of responsible procreation and reduction of births. Like I said before. Wow! “Responsible procreation” requied some work to investigate and uncover what they meant by this but “reduction of births” is pretty bold and straight forward and should clearly show its color. But then again if one has been drinking the coolaid of NFP it might just be something one with this NFP mindset can easily wrap the head around.
This is what we get for endorsing the sin of NFP. And please, complete abstinence is not contraception because it does not thwart Gods primary purpose for conjugal relations because there is no conjugal act occuring that is trying to thwart that purpose. I will post in a little while all that I can in what the Saints, Scripture and the Church teachings had to say on the evil and sin of separating proceration from unity during conjugal relations. In other words the impurity and sinfulness of contraception.
I will say it again, those bloody doors to the crisis we are experiencing today were thrown opened during Pius XII’s reign with his fallible private letter to the Italian midwives and to the begining of the modernist reforms of the liturgy during his reign. I know Pius XII wrote some very good orthodox things but he also promoted and let in modernist ideas. Like the website Tradition In Action says, “He was a vaccilating Pope” and they have much more to say about the analysis of his reign if you care to read it on their website. I need to say for the record though that I beleive that Francis is far worse for inciting scandal and disorientation on a grand public scale than Pius XII ever was.
As we’re sure you know from our past lengthy discussions, we think you are in error in declaring NFP as sinful. We agree that this Pope is in error in backing the new-age idea that the population needs to be decreased, and that it is “irresponsible” to have large families –especially if he’s basing that less on the health of the mother and more on what he believes the earth can provide in the way of food and other necessities. Our Lord Himself told us not to worry about what we are to eat or wear, as God will provide.
As you mentioned having a large amount of material you wish to post, we suggest following Louie’s recent directives and using the Forum for that, then providing a link.
Don’t worry I will be careful not to overload with TMI but I have been meaning to back my words on the sin of NFP whenever the topic of contraception, ‘responsible procreation’ and wow now, ‘reduced births’ comes up. As for the “we think you are in error” comment I beleive this can most likely be very misleading to all who read these posts. Like I said before words have meanings and can play tricks and deceive people. This “we” can easily be thought of as everyone on this website except me. Even if some people know who you are refering to, most people have to do a mental gymnastic to counter the thought that “we” means you and not everyone else commenting here. I still say it is imprudent and misleading to use the word we. I know you have humbly said in the past that you will consider this counsel. I am disappointed that you chose to stick with the usage of “we” dispite its harming pitfalls.
John I agree prophecy “MUST” be fulfilled !!! Fr. Malachi Martin said Our Church is going through the 2nd Passion and cannot be avoided. This francis guy is only preparing the ground for the New World Order religion (Novis Ordo = New order of the ages) They (the illuminati) are now realizing their dream !!! We win in the end, The Immaculate Heart Of Our Lady will take care of buisness. Saints say that road to hell is paved with skulls of Bishops and Priests.
He already made that “apology”… 😉
Right after the moment the college of cardinals voted this man into his office…
Perhaps if you read a biography of Pius XII you might change your mind about him and consider him a great saint. I certainly do. He might have had his weaknesses and defects, but consider he was a man too! He bravely pulled the Church through one its most difficult moments in history during WWII and during the post-war years.
St Malachy in his prophecies of the popes classifies him as the “Pastor Angelicus”. Protestantism was everywhere in retreat during his glorious reign, conversions were numerous in America among Protestants and throughout missionary territory, as evidenced by the successful work of people like Arch. Lefebvre.
Pius XII is perhaps the only pontiff other than St Peter to have been graced with a vision of Our Lord while lying near death in bed:
“Early on the morning of December 2nd, 1954 he awoke. There was enough daylight in the room for him to recognize all that was about him. Knowing that he was weaker than ever, and believing the time for death was drawing near, he started to recite the Anima Christi (Soul of Christ). At the very moment that he reached the part, “Call me when my life shall fail me,” Pius XII saw the Savior standing by his bedside, “silent in all His eloquent majesty.” It was the first time he knew of Our Lord appearing in such a way to a Pope since St. Peter asked, “Quo Vadis, Domine?” Like St. Peter, when he was first called, Pius XII thought Our Lord was inviting him to “Follow Me.” With joy in his heart, the Holy Father said, with what strength he had: “O bone Jesu! O bone Jesu! Voca me; iube me venire ad Te!” (O good Jesus! O good Jesus! Call Thou me; order me to come to Thee!) But alas, Our gentle Savior had not come to summon Pius XII home, but to comfort him. And after a little while He went away.”
The interesting thing about Pius XII is that he was held in the most high regard not only by pious Catholics who held fast to the faith, but even by many people outside the fold of the Church, even leading the chief rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, to convert to Catholicism on account of his great works of charity on behalf of the Jews during WWII (such as hiding them in the convents of Rome or even his own summer residence of Castel Gandolfo).
As you and at least one other person mentioned being confused a while back, “we” contacted Louie asking for instructions to change our call-name to “indignus famulus -grandparents,” (-which we were able
to do on the Deus Ex Machina blog but so far, not on Louie’s old one or this newer version.) To date we haven’t heard back from Louie on that. No idea why. (Maybe he is very busy, or thinks it unnecessary?)
We’ve continued to mention we’re grandparents periodically, but those who respond to us are “regulars” who already know that, as well.
So even though we see it as unnecessary, if you know of some way for individuals to access Louie’s system to change their call names without his help, please advise us, and we’ll be glad to relieve your stress.
We do think you’re greatly underestimating the intelligence of his readers in suggesting that people will think “we” means we have the “consensus of everyone else” here, rather than just assuming we are two or more people posting together. Anyone who frequents com boxes or reads even a couple of these posts can easily see that individuals are not swayed by a pack-mentality- and Catholics should be continually standing up to that, anyway, based on principles.
And though it may confuse people at first, we are not misrepresenting ourselves in any way, even if people mistakenly assume us to be a larger group, as we’ve earned our “we” the hard way–by raising a rather large Catholic family (who all agree with the views we’ve expressed to you on NFP and most other things. To post as an individual would be dishonest.
And speaking of “grandparents”, we may be taking a little break soon to help our daughter who is currently in active labor- (with their eighth) 🙂 🙂 and yes, we’re rather proud of our “rabbit-breeding” Catholic family who are praying for this earth-bound Pope’s conversion while waiting for the Lord to help His suffering Church survive Francis’ assaults on our Faith and sanity. _
We (grandparents) still think you’re wrong about NFP being inherently sinful, but as we’ve said before, if we believed as you do, we’d have argued against it rather than for. However, we do think still it’s a subject better suited to a forum-discussion.
Here are some quotes about what Scripture and the Church and the saints have to say about the primary purpose of marriage and conjugal relations.
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 fleshy 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”
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307:”There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that WHATEVER IS SOUGHT BEYOND THE DESIRE OF PROCREATION IS CONDEMNED BY GOD.”
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage bed, but be subservient TO THE PROCREATION OF CHILDREN. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is to be especially avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.”(ChapterI.XII–Of Restraning The Pleasures of the Senses)
Saint Clement of Alexandria (c.198A.D.) Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the words of Ezekial: “Put away your fornications.” (Eze.43:9) Why even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. TO INDULGE IN INTERCOURSE WITHOUT INTENDING CHILDREN IS TO OUTRAGE NATURE, whom we should take as our instructor.” ( The Paedagogus or the Instructor, BookII, Chapter X. – On the Procreation and Education of Children)
Saint Augustine, On The Goods of Marriage, section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting (of children) is free from blame, and itself is ALONE worthy of marriage. BUT THAT WHICH GOES BEYOND THIS NECESSITY ( OF BEGETTING CHILDREN) no longer follows reason but lust.”
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (c.540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that THEY ARE UNITED IN WEDLOCK FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCREATION! and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occassion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock, they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necssary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by an admixture of pleasure.” ( Saint Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, Part 3, Chapter 27, in “Ancient Christian Writers,” No.11, pp. 188-189)
Thank you, In Hoc. Can’t say we weren’t warned. Will God forgive the cardinals?????
The prophesies given to Mother Marianna for are time are so dead on accurate, they would be mind boggling if written only 75 years ago, let alone several centuries.
They are certainly something to cling to in the midst of these trials. It would all be a lot harder to take if we weren’t warned by Heaven beforehand.
Our time, not are time. Sorry for the typo.
The ones who are still alive will do it when Rome and most of the rest of the world is a smoldering pile of rubble.
I never claimed to be an optimist.
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, wrote: “We will infiltrate that place [the Vatican], and once inside, we will never come out. We will bore from within until nothing remains but an empty shell”.
Beawutiful number match, john6. And excludes the tampering done by the apostate Wojtyla aka JPII.
The trouble with men of like mind is that they tend to defend their own camp. The men in the Novus Ordo share heretical/apostate ways of thinking and practicing and seem not at all concerned about breaking ranks and converting to Christ’s Church. And they need conversion ‘recant and repent’ basically.
“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 text goes on to lay in detail the falsehoods of the wolves in question.]” Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius, John Henry Newman, Editor.
Saint Athanasius called out by name and rank those who have cast themselves out from the Body of Christ and lost all authority by their ‘apostasy’.
Who is doing that these days?:
“A “disturbing” image [Bergoglio snogging the heretics’ bible], says Chiesa e postconcilio . “What does the great catechism of St. Pius X, # 887. What should a Christian do if he is offered a Bible by a Protestant or an emissary of the Protestants? Answer: When a Christian of a is offered a bible by a Protestant or an envoy, he must reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church; when he accepts it, not noticing, then he must throw it immediately into the fire or deliver his pastor.”
For the story of the Waldensians battle against St John Boscoe: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/pope-kisses-waldensian-bible-pope.html
What is worse, Bergoglio’s Waldensian “Bible” kissing or Wojtyla Qu’ran kissing?
Both are despicable acts indeed, but the latter may be an even worse deed.
In the above article there are some interesting anecdotes about St John Bosco’s fights against the Waldensians.
Wojtyla is more culpable as he established the precedent of someone with a global platform who calls himself a ‘Catholic’ and ‘Pope’ daring to publicly venerate objects that mock Christ and His Church, thereby leading souls to perdition. Bergoglio, being a son of the pretender, continues it.
St Bosco’s ‘fight’ is something a Bergoglio could only think ludicrous:
“The Roman De Sanctis was a member of the Camillian Order, a professor of theology and a well-known priest in Rome in the 1830s. But in the revolutionary year of 1848, De Sanctis turned his back on the Catholic Church, left his Order and its parish and went to Malta. He became a Protestant and married. A little later he was Vicar of Pastor Meille in Turin and took part in the anti-Catholic magazine “The Evangelical Light”, which was directed primarily against Don Bosco. When it came to conflicts within the Waldensians, De Sanctis became Calvinist, which is what cost him his place in the Waldensians and plunged him into a deep crisis. Don Bosco contacted De Sanctis on 17 November 1854. He tried to pave the apostate priest’s way back to the Catholic Church. The move may seem surprising, after all, De Sanctis was a “traitor” and had written numerous writings against the Catholic Church, especially attacks against the Sacrament of Penance. But Don Bosco was convinced of the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He was concerned about the salvation of the souls of men.”
I am happy to see that you have tried to correct this confusion with the usage of “we”. In the meantime I think using we grandparents is a good solution. Hope that helps.
I need pose a question to which I have an answer, “What does it profit a man with 8,10,15,or 20 children to build his house on the quicksand of NFP? It profits him nothing. Why would it not occur to the offspring of NFPers, who instruct their children that NFP is not a sin, to not wonder if they themselves were perhaps an accident or a break away conception that by the skin of their teeth during their conception happen to avoid the NFP death sentence by making it all the way to the stage of implantation and successful birth because their parents messed up on their planned timming for infertility? The crucial difference between NFPers and Catholics who are fully open to life during conjugal relations in their thoughts, words and deeds is that the NFPer see the separation of procreation from unity during conjugal relations as not a sin whereas the non-NFPer knows it is a sin through natural law and because of what the true Catholic Church has always taught through Scripture, Church Fathers, Saints and all the teachings from the magisterium that don’t contradict the Catholic dogmas on faith and morals. A well formed Catholic that rejects the planned separation of procreation from unity during conjugal relations because they know it to be a sin and neverless find thenselves failing in purity and chastity during conjugal relations, know that God in His mercy has not abandoned them because He has given us the sacrament of confession to get us back on our feet in our quest for purity and sainthood.
I think that the acceptance of the reality of the constant fight against concupiscence ‘until we die’ is very hard for a lot of people to swallow. After all that will most likely mean a lot of back and forth to the confessional for many. I get that, but who ever said or beleives that the attainment to purity and sainthood was going to be easy and not without a good dosage of humility?
I hope most people got the chance to read my quotes from Scripture, the Church Fathers and saints on the sin of NFP.
Dear In Hoc Sogno Vinces,
I appreciate your defense of Pope Pius XII. My critique of his pontificate is to primarily point out the gravity and the time bomb that was planted due to the devastating statement to teach for the first time in a private letter to the midwives that one can separate procreation from unity during conjugal relations for grave reasons. This fallible teaching and contradiction to what Scripture teaches and what Church Fathers and Saints have taught along with Pius XI ‘s encyclical Castii Connubii was indeed very grave. Look at the mess we are in now when the United Nations Mellinium developmemtal goals uses Catholic Relief Service’s NFP programs as a launching pad to push for contraception and abortion.
I don’t like picking on Pius XII but I feel it my duty to demonstrte the evil of NFP and just what a floodgate of bloodshed it opened up. I feel that Pius XII’s reign is where we see the beginnings of the forked tongue double speak movement. I feel that although Pope Pius XII appeared to speak more out of the right side of his mouth and whispered less out the left of his mouth, Francis is clearly speaking the flip way i.e. speaking out of his left side of his mouth and barely whispering out of his right side of his mouth. Just look at the rotten fruits we see around us today because of this time bomb of NFP.
Anastasia, I share your belief that NFP is problematic. I won’t say sinful because the three things necessary for sin may not be there in all cases, BUT in history there have always been methods to either abort or interrupt implantation. And as ancient man knew exactly where babies come from, NFP’s use is ancient. Ever hear of Onan? Not an exact analogy but close in principle.
I think this question must be asked before we get into anything else: what would be the reason to use NFP? The main reason is that we don’t want to have a baby NOW.
We want to have a baby (if it’s perhaps God’s will that we have more) but not NOW.
Second question: What is it about NOW that makes having another child impossible? Several good reasons: sick mother, last baby sick and needing extraordinary care, destitution of family. Note the word ‘destitution’ – this is not poverty.
We bring all kinds of other reasons into the mix, like poverty, fatigue of the mother, lack of money for college of other children, mother wants to continue college, etc.
Bottom line: when you ask ‘why’ use NFP the issue becomes very clear. In almost every case it is something the couple wants more than another child. We’re now told that the Church approves of NFP in grave cases. But look around! In many diocese NFP is taught to all couples who are interested. This very soon becomes that corrupt mind-set of ‘responsible parenthood.’
Funny, I thought when God was in charge of procreation, in cooperation with parents, it was always ‘responsible.’
Sad isn’t it that we can trace this mess to the beginnings of the capitulation to the culture. In Pius XII time modern culture was swamping traditional culture. He was a saintly man, in my opinion, but I think he felt he has to bend a little and try to reach modern man.
And yes, it is in hindsight, a huge mistake.
Here’s a quote from St. John Bosco: “I am a Catholic priest and Catholic priests are for the glory of God and ready to die for the good of the souls entrusted to them.”
Good Saint John said this to men who had come to kill him. There were many attempts to kill him over the years once it was known what a good and faithful priest he was, AND HOW HE KNEW HIS ONE JOB WAS TO SAVE THE SOULS IN HIS CHARGE NO MATTER WHAT!
This idea has almost completely disappeared from priests.
Yes. An account of a pitiful ‘useful idiot’ tool of the Devil.
Yes. Imagine how scared you would be when many people hated you and hated the Faith and tried to kill you? St. John was afraid too, but this fear was the kind that did not paralyse. In fact because he knew that Our Dear Lord Jesus was afraid in the Garden, St. John knew that acting in spite of that fear was the only way to please God.
I’m afraid you may be right. Nothing else than a full blown chastisement is going to wake up catholics of good will.
All who are sounding the coming Chastisement alarms couldn’t be more on target. We have a NEW TERM TO ADD TO THE CHURCH’S POST CONCILIAR HERESY LIST: ” IRREVERSIBLE COHABITATION” — As in “We refuse to repent, and the Church has gone soft because we have kids.”
“On the assembly’s most hot-button issue of all, the instrumentum speaks of a “common accord” among the world’s bishops toward “eventual access” to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried couples, but only following “an itinerary of reconciliation or a penitential path under the authority of the [diocesan] bishop,” and only “in situations of IRREVERSIBLE COHABITATION.”
-The text cautions that the proposal is only envisioned “in some particular situations, and according to well-precise conditions,” citing the interest of children born in a second union. On a related front, ample treatment was given to the state of marriage tribunals, with calls for a “decentralization” of the annulment courts and the floating of the “relevance of the personal faith” of spouses in terms of their understanding of the marital bond as a means for declaring the nullity of a marriage.
They want to make it official policy to nullify marriages on the grounds the couple didn’t know the Faith well enough to understand what “till death do us part” means. We knew this was coming, but the preparation time didn’t help with the disgust level we feel. They’ve been practicing it in tribunals in America for decades.
I am very disappointed to see that after everything I have quoted from the Churches teachings on the sin of separating procreation from unity during conjugal relations that you refuse to accept the Churches teachings on this and say the Church doesn’t teach this. I have posted some very helpful Church teachings in a post several posts ahead of this one. I hope you got a chance to read it. I have also previously pointed out how Humanae Vitae contradicts Castii Connubii. I have quoted Scripture and Church Fathers and saints. I have explained how NFP goes against natural law and yet you prefer to hang your hat on a private letter to the Italian midwives from a vaccilating pope and Humanae Vitae written by Paul VI who ushered in all kinds of novelties with the implimentation of the NO.
I don’t quite follow how exactly NFP is the only way out when someone doesn’t want a child ‘just yet’ because of grave reasons. Just exactly how grave can these reasons be if they are willing to play Russian Roullette with NFP? The error is thinking that abstinence is not a choice that actually exists therefore we are allowed to thwart Gods purpose for conjugal relations because there is no way our Lord can give us the grace we need to abstain. This is a big mistake to make Barbara.
“Willingly suffer a bit for God Who suffered so much for you.”
St John Bosco
What a prophetic quote. Even then he was warning us. Why on God’s green earth are the faithful still in the N.O? Or the SSPX For that matter. They’re still under Him. I just don’t get it. I guess Francis will have grow horns before any one will stand up and takes notice and even then I wonder if they will.
Just like I said before ” irreversible cohabitation” has everything to do with not understanding that if the adulterors or fornicators feel they can only remain under the same roof in order to raise their children then they must cease living as if they were husband and wife i.e live as brother amd sister and renounce sexual relations. Here again we have the NFP mentality of “What give up sex for the higher nobler reason of obeying God’s laws and Commandments on marriage. Impossible!”
NFP is the conscious decision to not procreate…..it cannot possibly be Catholic in any way. It is birth control. It is undoubtedly mortally sinful as it denounces the primary purpose of marriage. Anyone who fails to ACKNOWLEDGE this (because anyone with a sound mind can SEE it clearly) lies to themselves. NFP is one of those V2 things, sinful as it is, that managed to slip through the cracks so well that even supposed good Catholics have chosen to accept it as somehow being ok.
Or Romans 13:13 – from the Word of God to the bishops when they meet again for the Synod on the Family in considering their approval of sodomy:
“Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy.” (Douay Rheims)
Even clearer in the corrupt New International Version:
“Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealously.”
And a reminder that Jesus is the only High Priest , the everlasting God , who shed His blood and gave His life-not the blood of the sacrificial lamb of the Jews whose body was burned outside the camp.
“And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.”
Absolutely. Satan has used our obedience to the authority of Christ, to those who sit in the Chair of Peter, and put into place counterfeits in order to try to deceive us and look how successful he has been.
Like Paul VI said the smoke of Satan had entered the Church and then he opened the doors and windows wide so the smoke turned into a raging fire.
Wouldn’t the greatest danger be in not recognizing the wolf, believing he is a true shepherd?
We are not helpless. We have the Truth who is our Lord, Jesus Christ and who will never abandon us although our shepherds have. Trust in the Lord. Love Him with all of your mind, heart, and soul and follow Him in perseverance. Put on the armor of Christ and do battle with the evil that permeates the world, which is only our temporary home. Remember that if we love Christ, we should be prepared to die for Him.
Scripture, the true teachings of the Church based upon Scripture and tradition, were abandoned by these wolves. They are tools of Satan and God has given them up to his worship as that is where their hearts lie.
Yes, john6. Beautiful number match indeed — Genesis 3:15.
And your Bishop Sheen quote is amazing.
Considering the fact the Second Vatican Council “reformed” all of the Sacraments, including marriage, to reduce them to mere symbolism and make them acceptable to the heretics and schismatics and more importantly, comport to their new religion, is it surprising that they are simply putting down in writing what they are already doing in practice, which is allow another type of sacrilege against Our Lord Jesus Christ they already perform in their invalid, anti-Catholic “Eucharistic celebration”?
Yes. Theses prophesies are amazing. The suffering Mother Mariana went through for US in the twentieth century are also mind boggling, to borrow your good phrase.
Another of their devious tactics to deceive the Catholic and put him/her into the arms of Satan.
I admit I was unaware that it was Pope Pius XII that opened the door to the use of NFP. Could you provide a reference?
The image of Benedict praying with the Muslims in their mosque is as disturbing as it gets.
Or the never-ending public displays of sacrilege and blasphemy on the “tables” of every Novus Ordo service.
This certainly is not the teaching of the Conciliar church is it?
Exactly. And like you allude to, look at the posts just on this thread….good people are surely being deceived.
Would you mind examining your statement from another perspective by applying it to another bodily function (drinking) that has a primary and secondary purpose–hydration for health, and relief of thirst accompanied by pleasure of taste, smell, and feelings of well-being? It would then read:
–Drinking wine is a conscious decision not to hydrate….it cannot possibly be Catholic in any way. It is water control, (alcohol dehydrates the body). It is undoubtedly mortally sinful as it denounces the primary purpose of drinking. Anyone who fails to ACKNOWLEDGE this (because anyone with a sound mind can SEE it clearly ) lies to themselves. Drinking wine is one of those VII things, sinful as it is, that managed to slip through the cracks so well, that even supposed good Catholics have chosen to accept it as somehow being ok.”
If it IS sinful to separate the primary and secondary functions God intended for our bodies; then it WOULD be sinful for anyone to drink anything strictly for taste, smell or bodily pleasure instead of for nutrition or hydration. But we know that can’t be true, because
— Our Lord made a large supply of choicest wine at the Wedding Feast of Cana, to address His Blessed Mother’s request, and AFTER the wine provided for the Feast had already been consumed.
–It wasn’t for hydration, obviously, and must have been for the pleasure of the taste and the sensations good wine creates in the brain, etc. –which the Bible speaks of as rejoicing the heart, etc. to enhance the several days of celebrating.
With such evidence that God’s intended primary and secondary purposes of other bodily functions can indeed be separated without incurring sin; as the Church teaches and when used as directed by the Church; at the very least, should you not be entertaining reasonable doubt about your position and the likelihood that you are falsely accusing innocent people of sin?
You should be able to google Pius XII’s private letter to the Italian midwives for the information on his writtings for endorsing having recourse exclusively to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. You will find that he writes some good orthodox things about marriage but unfortunately his writings on conjugal relations in this letter are contradictory.
So you are actually going to compare drinking alcohol to the sexual act which is solely for the purpose of procreation? I can easily drink a glass or two to enjoy the wine….after that, when I lose my ability to reason, I am in a state of sin. Drinking alcohol does not call into question whether or not a life will come into existence. What is the secondary purpose of the sexual act? Is there one? I contend there isnt one, which would obviously make NFP entirely void….but I’d like to hear your opinion on the matter. I believe that you have bought into the heretical falsehood of the vatican 2 sect and have fallen prey to one of their lies. As a father of 10 I believe emphatically, any sexual act performed with the intent of preventing a new life is MORTALLY sinful…and that is what NFP is: lets have sex when we KNOW pregnancy will almost certainly not happen strictly for pleasure. MORTALLY SINFUL…how do you not see this????
I think the other difference is there is no intentional or deliberate “separation” from the primary purpose of hydration when drinking wine but with NFP the separation from the primary purpose of procreation is always intended and deliberate.
Regarding Pope Pius XII (impeccable when it came to Catholic doctrine) but not impeccable when it came to judging people’s motives.
Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (and Mystici Corporis) beautifully and soundly defends the Traditional Rites in all aspects in true Catholic opposition to novelties. In Humani Generis he condemns the new theology which was one of the foundations for the Novus Ordo rites. The innovations introduced under his pontificate are a result of the ‘Pian Reform Commission’ headed by Bugnini of wretched memory. The commission included secret meetings and experimentations with liturgical innovations and ran from 1948 through to the miserable imposition upon all the parishes of the world of the protestant Novus Ordo. Pope Pius XII ‘lacked practical judgement’ when it came to some of the wolves that surrounded him. It is possible that the ageing Pontiff was the victim of deliberate deceit:
“Indeed, Bugnini himself hints at this. After he tells us in his memoirs that the Pian commission worked in such secrecy that its 1951 Ordo for Holy Saturday caught even the Congregation of Rites by surprise, Bugnini drops the following tantalizing hints: “The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work my Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Fr Bea, confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during the periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.” The period of Pius XII’s ilness mentioned here began in January 1954; he had recovered by August, but by December 1954 was so ill again that his doctors thought he was near death. It was during this period of time that Bugnini and his allies were preparing the new 1955 Holy Week rite. Archbishop Montini (Paul VI) and Agostino Bea (later a cardinal and premier ecumenist) will prove to be Bugnini’s strongest supporters when the Curial officials later fired him for being a liturgical “iconoclast.” We now know with the benefit of hindsight that these men were set on a course to ruin the Church. But if you are a gravely ill 79-year-old pope who is a bit credulous, and your trusted Jesuit confessor brings you a document to approve, telling you it is just fine because it was all put together by that smart young liturgist Father Bugnini, what are the chances that you will say no?” Rev. Anthony Cekada, “The Work of Human Hands”, pg 65.
For breif presentation on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR4GZTXyWmU
I would like to suggest that the problem with periodic continence is not to be found in the aspect of separation of the primary and secondary ends of the marital act, since there is no potentially creative act which is thus frustrated. The problem is rather in the frustration of the procreative end of marriage by abstaining from the marital act. A couple may abstain from conjugal relations for virtuous reasons (mutual sacrifice, prayer, or penance), which is virtuous continence. But to abstain for the contraceptive purpose cannot be virtuous, because children are the supreme gift of marriage and existence is always an ontological good.
Therefore, I would propose that periodic continence is always at least venially sinful. While, total continence may be virtuous, if it is not directly contraceptive; that is, not directly intended for the prevention of children.
But periodic continence and total continence for-the-purpose-of-avoiding-children are to be clearly distinguished from artificial contraception which is always matter of mortal sin, since artificial contraception always involves the frustration of the marital act.
you have written another clear and concise diagnosis of the theologically unsound, modern papacy and church. Thank you.
Dear Father G,
We have a few questions for you, as we consider the truth about these matters to be very important.
It was good to see your refutation of the idea that NFP is mortal sin. But since the Church defines a venial sin as a thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God, and NFP (periodic continence) is taught by the Church as fully compliant with the laws of God, including for the intended purpose of not conceiving for a certain period of time, [as long as the serious conditions stipulated are met], your proposal –that it is always a venial sin – appears to be based on a personal rejection of the Church’s official teaching regarding NFP. Is this true?
If the current Church teaching on NFP is correct, and the serious conditions prescribed are MET by the married couple using it, there should be NO sin at all involved. If that were not the case, the Church would be obliged to teach that it is always a venial sin, which, to our knowledge, they have never done, and in fact, deny. Just so we’re clear on where you stand, would you agree with that statement as well? And are you suggesting the Church is promoting NFP under the principle of double effect wherein something evil is tolerated for a greater good?
We have read in various places, that the Church teachings on this matter, from Pius XI (Casti Cannubi) Pius XII, (To Midwives) Paul VI etc until now, -which apparently were directly used to develope NFP, reject, as mistaken, the well-known views of Augustine and Aqinas that all sexual relations (at least since the fall of man) are sinful, and only redeemed in part, by the Sacrament of Marriage, — leaving marital relations as venial sin.
–We know Our Lord promised to remain with his Church, and with the Pope has the help of the Holy Spirit when he promulgates for the whole church on matters of Faith and morals such as these. We also know that both Augustine and Aquinas -while they made tremendous contributions to the Church, each acknowledged their failings and fallibility–Augustine worked for years on his “retractions” and Aquinas refused to finish the Suma 3 months before his death, after receiving a revelation from God at Mass. Asked by his assistant Reginald to return to writing he said , “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”
Thanks for any help you can provide in answering these questions.
The comparison we made was with regard to God’s treatment of His own established primary and secondary purposes in nature. It was not, a trivialization or relativizing of the importance of the marriage act.
Your denial that there is an established primary and secondary purpose, makes us wonder why you agreed with Anastasia, as that is her main point so often–that the two cannot be separated, and it is based on the Churches longstanding teachings.
While hold your generous fatherhood (of 10) in very high regard it does not qualify you to redefine what is or is not, mortal sin.
God bless you and your family. Despite our disagreements on matters of principle, we do pray for everyone who reads and posts here, daily. 🙂 🙂
I beleive Our Lord is still present in the new mass (correct matter & form intention )im sure you studied this for a long time , i still think it possible that you may have under estimated our lords passion only because tell me if im wrong but im sure you love the bleessed trinity that much that you cant imagine if your opinion is wrong that Our Lord would be subject to so much sacrilege and profanation all over the world for so long, so that idea of so many terrible acts of sacrilege doesnt seem possible to you. The church as you know has to undergo the horricfic passion that Our Lord himself went through. Theres been many catholics In the past that gave in to heresy ( i cant remember its name )because they couldnt accept that Christ was GOD and would allow himself to suffer so much for us. Im not likeing you to an herectic far from it ,your probably a more prayerfull devout catholic than me. Obviously in one respect i wish your opinion was correct but in my opinion Our Lord is still present in the new mass of which i dont attend save marriges etc. Its a far more likely for the devil to try and convince solid catholics to basically deny that christ is even present in the vast majority of catholic churches throughout the world than to attack them in other areas where they could be too strong. God bless catherine i dont claim any authority in my words all is my opinion. Ps i well aware of the joke regarding opinions hahahah its true
I agree with you that one cannot equate the lust of food with the lust of the sexual appetite. Conjugal relations are what define a sacrament namely marriage. Eating is not a sacrament. Yes one can sin through eating through glutony and even to some extent through an inordinate desire or fixation for the epicurian experience. Conjugal union onnthe other hand involves two souls and has the potentiality of creating a third soul due to this sexual union.
This alone ups the higher importance of conjugal relations just by the fact that we have teo souls and the possibility of three souls being intertwined. Eating is no where near its sacredness that is one of the reasons that eating was never elevated to the level of a sacrament. It is because of marriage’s potentiality to bring souls into the world for the greater glory pf God via the union of a man and a woman that make it sacred.
I wish to point out that there is a secondary purpose to conjuagal relations and the Church has always taught this. That is, the faithful Catholic Church has always taught this. It is eveident that a poor understanding of the hierarchies of marriage is definitely prevalent today throughout many of the disoriented and confused members of the Church.
Please take the time to read Pius XI’s encyclical “Castii Connubii” that speak on the hierarchies of marriage and its primary purpose. I will quote the most recent and one of the last times that this teaching was ever taught before the onslaught of NFP. Now don’t fall off your chair but I will be quoting John Paul II of which I am not a huge fan of but nonetheless he wrote this when he was a Cardinal in 1960 but it is the last we time I beleive a word of this truth was even whispered, and beleive me I mean whispered because most of this book from which I retreive this quote shows the clear beginnings and desire towards the introduction to phenomenology, the personalistic norm and a deeper new meaning of marriage which has led us into the mess we find ourselves today.
Here is the quote from Karl Wojtyla’s book “Love and Responsibility” on the Catholic Church’s teachings on the hierarchies of marriage. Please commit this to memory.
“The Church, as has been mentioned previously, teaches , and HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT, (my emphasis), that the primary end (purpose) of marriage is procreatio, but that it has as a secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium. Apart from these a tertiary aim is mentioned- remidium concupiscentiae. Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a ligitimate orientation for desire. The ends of marriage, in the order mentioned, are incompatible with any subjectivist interpretation of the sexual urge, and therefor demand from man, as a person, objectivivity in his thinking on sexual matters, and above all in his behavior. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality…….we must be very much on guard against the trivialization of the teaching of the purposes of marriage.
With this in mind, it seems equally clearly indicated that the mutuum adiutorium mentioned in the teaching of the Church on the purposes of marriage as second in importance after procreation must not be interprted- as it often is- to mean mutual ‘love’. Those who do may mistakenly come to beleive that procreation as the primary end is something distinct from ‘love’, as also is the tertiary end, ‘remedium concupiscentiae, whereas both procreation and remedium concupiscentiae must result from love as a virtue… Mutuum adiutorium as a purpose of marriage is likewise only a result of love as a virtue. There are no grounds for interpreting the phrase mutuum adiutorium to mean ‘love’. For the Church, in arranging the objective purposes of love in in a particular order , seeks to emphasize that procreation is objectovely, ontologically, a more important purpose than that man and woman should live togother, complement each other and support each other (mutuum adiutorium), just as this second purpose is in turn more important than the appeasement of natural desire. But there is no question of opposing love to procreation nor yet of suggesting that procreation takes precedance over love.” ( pp.66-68, year1960)
I need to also add that the hierarchies of purposes are all subordinate to and at the service of the purpose that comes before it. In other words one can not put these purposes at the same level and one cannot not ever separate them from each other. The sexual urge is subordinate to the unity, the unity is subordinate to procreation and procreation is subordinate to the greater glory of God.The primary purpose of procreation is subordinate to and at the service of being fruitful in creating souls for the FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD not man.
There is also a hierarchy of roles in marriage and that is the husband is the head and the woman is subordinate to the husband and the children are subordinate to the father and mother for the greater glory of God. God is the supreme divine head of the household and over the husband. All this subordination of course ceases when the husband or parents reject God’s authority over them. This of course is another topic that has been suppressed and swept clearly under the rug for the new goddess of liberation and feminism.
To Barbara and IF-grandparents: I don’t know if you will see this reply, because I am late to the party, so to speak. Anastasia is absolutely correct in her analysis of NFP. It was the proverbial ‘camel’s nose under the tent’. Back in the late ’90’s, Human Life International published a front page article in their newsletter by a medical doctor who proclaimed that God had kept NFP a secret for “millions of years” and was just now revealing it to us. I was shocked. God does not keep secrets. That is the heresy of gnosticism. Satan will do anything to get souls, even well meaning ones, into hell. God bless you all.
Dear Alphonsus Jr, He’s certainly a manifest pertinacious heretic.
Dear Father G,
I beleive you and I have somewhat discussed your ideas on this in the forum on marriage and NFP. I think I might be starting to understand where you appear to be in error in your thinking. Your sentence ” The problem with periodic continence is not to be found in the aspect of separation of the primary and secondary ends of the marital act since there is no potentially creative act which is thus frustrated.” needs to be examined.
Sexual intercourse which has God as its architect and author was instituted for the procreation and education of children for God’s glory. Whether the sexual act is happening during infertile times doesn’t all of a sudden negate the primary purpose that has been imprinted on it from The Creator himself.
You seem to be trying to place complete abstinence for selfish reasons as the same sin as the separation of procreation from unity during conjugal relations. They are not the same sin. After all our Lord only had had Onan killed on the spot for trying to thwart God’s plan for procreation and benefit from conjugal relations at the expebnse of rejecting the potentiality of children. However there is another place in the Bible where a man was required to also marry his brother’s wife and he refused to consumate the marriage. In other words he refused to have sex,i.e abstain for selfish reasons and he was ,yes , he was punished but his punishment was not immediate death but some sort of public humiliation. My point is that NFP is not just a venial sin it is a mortal sin.To thwart God’s plan by actively planning your sexual relations during times of infertility in order to suck out all the benefits of sex at the exclusion of the gift of children is an affront against God and his plan for conjugal relations and nothing enrages Him more.
Most human males and females have the potentiality to procreate. Are they sinning because they are not actively doing something about it every day of the year? Are they stealing from God His just due? Of course not. Like I said before to complete abstinencecan be a sin if it is done in the sacrament of marriage for unreasonable reasons and or selfishness but it is no where near the same sin as stealing from God His just due of the potentiality of souls from the conjugal act of which He is the author and architect when one practices the lie and act of NFP.
Not every soul that was ever born or created was willed by God. Souls are permited to be conceived and born by God but not always willed by God. Like our Lord said, it would have been better that Judas was never born. Not all conceptions in themselves always end well or even begin well. It is only on judgement day when we will know if it were better that that soul were never born. Therefore just because the potentially of conception exists does not mean that all conceptions and all potential conceptions and births (i.e frozen embrios implantations come to mind)are willed by God.
Thank you for the clarification. Makes perfect sense, and as in almost all cases intent matters.
I meant thank you to Father, not to others, with whom I disagree.
P.S. to Father G,
We just finished reading your discussion with Anastasi in the general forum under NFP, and think we have a better idea of where you stand regarding NFP in general, and venial sin in particular–(tradition). If you would care to reply to any other parts of our questions there, it might be more appropriate than continuing this off-topic discussion here in the com box.
Thanks for thoughts—and to Anastasia as well. Both of you are extremely articulate and detailed on this subject, and it’s obvious your intentions, like ours, are to seek the truth for the good of all.
It’s a shame there is so much confusion everywhere.
God bless you Lake Erie!
As I read your informative articles on the Pope I keep wondering what does the Pope’s efforts say about those who put in the Chair?
You raise good questions that get to the heart of the matter. At this point, please allow me to point out that I did not say that periodic continence could not be mortal sin. I did not take a position on that topic. My point was that periodic continence cannot be virtuous (of itself), and therefore it must be at least venially sinful. This point is especially pertinent in light of today’s tragic SCOTUS decision. And, in fairness to Anastasia above, this opinion carries the weight of not only St. Augustine & St. Thomas Aquinas, but was the operative principle of Catholic morality for about 1500 years.
The inescapable fact is that periodic continence (during its use) is contraceptive abstinence. Keeping in mind, though, that the Church’s official language reserves the word “contraception” to the frustration of the marital act; namely, artificial contraception, or artificial birth control, which is always matter of mortal sin.
Perhaps you would clarify your comments about God’s will. For we know that no one, or no thing, can exist, or continue to exist, except that it is willed directly by God.
Please enlighten me because I am having a very hard time distinguishing between the “level” of sin here. We all fully understand that artificial birth control is mortally sinful. This is a given for all of us here. My question is how exactly NFP (periodic continence) would possibly be only venially sinful if its true purpose is to prevent life, which is exactly the same true purpose of artificial birth control, which we all know is mortally sinful. In theory a married couple could go their entire marriage and willfully have NO children at all (by practicing NFP) and still never be in a state of mortal sin. I dont think I see the logic here.
Thanks for your prayers….I need them. If I happened to appear rude in my prior post I apologize, that wasnt my intention but when I re-read my post I could easily see it appearing that way. As I stated in my post to Father G I just cannot wrap my head around the idea of NFP being an acceptable Catholic practice.
It is God’s will that conceptions will occur according to His laws placed in His architecture and ways of biology in sexual reproduction. He however does not will man to blaspheme these laws. Our Lord has given all of us free will to follow His laws on marriage. It is not God’s will that man thwart His laws on marriage. Man has the free will to reject, twist or pervert these laws but not without the high price of mortal sin. This is what I meant by God does not will all conceptions. I admit the word ‘will’ can be easily be construed as going against the teaching that nothing can exist, except that it is willed directly by God. Perhaps I could have used the words God does not accept all the methods used to conceive children.
And might I add that it is known that conception does have the chance to occur during what one perceives as their infertile period. People who practice poor timing i.e. too early, of conjugal relations when trying to get pregnant have a higher rate of miscarriage. Meaning that it is possible that NFP can produce a conception but just not succeed when it gets to the implantation stage because the proper hormone balance has died out because the embryo had too far to travel because of NFP’s calculated early timing to prevent a healthy fruitful conception.
I was unaware of that. Very good point.
Dear IF – This is a message from “Anastasia’s Husband” (not my real name). The alcohol drinking analogy fails on an important logical point that I have not read from anyone. One can easily agree that the primary purpose of drinking is to provide hydration. It also has other purposes, some of them more akin to benefits, that are secondary in nature (such as pleasure).
One’s goals in using NFP is to attain sexual pleasure while avoiding conception. On the other hand, when drinking wine, no one intends to attain epicurean pleasure while avoiding hydration. Sexual intercourse and drinking are not intrinsically evil acts. Sexual intercourse under an NFP agenda (let’s leave the “grave reasons” exception for another debate) is an intrinsically evil act because of the contraceptive intent. The drinking of wine is not intrinsically evil because there is no intent to avoid hydration … there is no contra-hydration agenda.
Let me lastly say that I have just now read (spurred by the comments on this thread) your comments in the forum section of this blog regarding NFP. Very impressive. I agree with you on Pius xii’s letter to the midwives: it most certainly has added to the confusion.
Intersting discussion: The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Dogmatic) has this to say:
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.
The moral difference is that artificial contraception always involves the frustration of the procreative end of individual acts of sexual intercourse, but periodic continence does not frustrate the procreative end of individual acts of sexual intercourse. This explains why some couples (illicitly) resort to artificial contraception as a provisional back-up to periodic continence.
Your scenario of the married couple using NFP all throughout their marriage without ever having children and without incurring the guilt of mortal sin is a theoretical possibility. However, if they entered marriage with the intention of never having children, then the marriage would be invalid. And to knowingly enter into an invalid marriage would be gravely sinful matter, along with their subsequent acts of sexual intercourse.
Dear Fr G,
Thanks for further clarifying your points. NFP has been “officially” presented in classes and publications for many years now, without a hint of sin of any kind attached to it. With reactions to it being so varied; many in the hierarchy having been evidently compromised; and the world, including the U.S., running to the edge of the cliff that drops off to hell– without their necessary correction; it seems more and more likely that some large-scale Divine Intervention is our only hope for ending this confusion, and that some additional heavy chastisements are likely to precede it–“as in the days of Noah”, God help us all.
We ran to Our Lady via the rosary today, to help with the pain we felt on hearing the Court’s decision. It’s like Roe v/Wade day re-visited, only this time, we wonder of the angel’s fiery sword will not be held back any longer. We’re urging people to make good Confessions, continue to reform towards greater personal holiness, and hold fast to the Faith till the end, when Our Lady’s promised triumph comes.
God Bless us al with knowledge of His will and Truth.
Don’t give it another thought. It’s easy to sound harsher than we intend when writing-especially when we’re passionate about preventing false ideas from spreading. . We need to keep seeking the Truth with the Love our Lord expects us to maintain in our hearts for one another. He’ll give us His heavenly bread to replace these stones we’ve been being handed lately by his representatives, if we keep asking. On the bright side, we’ve all got the tenacity to do that. 🙂 🙂
I really don’t beleive you answered Rich’s question on NFP being venially sinful since NFP’s intent is the exact same intent and act as people who use any other method to avoid having children.They both wish to divorce procreation from unity during conjugal relations in order to avoid having children and they both act on this goal and commitment of theirs. Being infertile naturally or not naturally doesn’t matter. It is what is in ones mind and acts to exclude procreation from sex that makes it a mortal sin. Until you come to terms with this reality and truth you will always be in error. I will pray for you.
Do you acknowledge that beyond intention, it is also necessary that there be serious matter for mortal sin? I am sure you do. One cannot commit mortal sin by stealing a simple pencil, even if one fully intends to do so. But then you must admit that I did address Rich’s question. For the frustration of individual acts of marital intercourse is a different kind of act than abstaining from intercourse during the fertile time.
In your scenario, where exactly does the mortal sin occur? What specific acts must be confessed, in number and in kind? Is it every time husband and wife decide not to have marital relations, or only those times when they know that they are not fertile? Is it when they attempt to read the signs of fertility/or infertility? But what about couples who know this intuitively without reading the signs? Is it when they have sexual relations during the infertile times? But this could be likened to having sexual relations during pregnancy, which has never been considered to be mortal sin in Catholic morality. Is it when they decide to use periodic continence? But how short must the period be before it’s total continence? 2 weeks? 1 month? 2 months? 2 years? 10 years?
I think your intentions are good, but you are running the risk of diminishing the seriousness of artificial birth control, and therefore, you could be leading people into serious sin. I urge you to be cautious and modest in your search for the truth.
I agree with Anastasia 100% and here is a little excerpt from a Tan Book “This is the Faith” by Father Canon Francis Ripley that FrG may want to take into account that might help explain why NFP is always a mortal sin: “The END or purpose of NFP — that is, “planning” one’s family— IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in principle, being against Natural Law and the teachings of the Church. A couple DOES NOT have the right to “plan their family”, EVEN though the means used are those of NFP and do not violate the Church’s proscriptions against artificial birth control. As Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), declared before the assembled bishops at Vatican Council II, “I am not pleased with the statement in the (draft) text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. NEVER HAS THIS BEEN HEARD OF IN THE CHURCH.”
Im sorry but I have to disagree with you here. While NFP may not always frustrate the procreative end, this “act” of NFP…doing our best to make sure a life is not conceived….is surely its goal regardless. How is this not mortally sinful? Entering into a marriage with the intent of having no children was not part of my hypothetical. We already know this is not a true marriage to begin with.
Canon Ripley published his catechism in 1951. But, as you know, Cardinal Ottaviani made his declaration at the Second Vatican Council (1965). Therefore, portions of this paragraph are likely an addition by the publisher. Indeed, later in the same chapter of “This is the Faith”, the use of periodic continence is defended for serious reasons.
However, I think the Cardinal’s point is valid and merits careful consideration. But I also think his point does not imply that every use of periodic continence is always matter of mortal sin.
On “doing our best to make sure a life is not conceived”; do you agree that this could also be the direct intention of the couple that uses total abstinence? In which case, do you also hold that this must always be mortally sinful? Keeping in mind that periodic continence actually offers less assurance than total abstinence of making sure that life is not conceived.
FrG, Cardinal Ottaviani’s comment was about “NFP” being sinful and unacceptable based on Church teaching which is what I thought this discussion was about and never about “periodic continence.” NFP and periodic continence are two totally different issues and seems to me to be the reason why they had to change what they called it to begin with.
Dear Father G,
Why is it that you don’t accept to acknowledge that to separate procreation from unity during conjugal relations in order to not have children is a mortal sin? I am not refering to the part of NFP that abstains from sex during their perceived fertile periods as being sinful although as I said before it can be. The part of the NFP act I am talking about is the part that plans to exclusively take advantage of the perceived infertile period in order to separate procreation from unity DURING CONJUGAL RELATIONS. This is where the mortal sin lies in the acts of NFP. You seem to want to drive the discussion to focus on the act of abstaining from conjugal intercourse during fertile periods versus the act of separating procreation from unity during infertile periods while taking advatage of conjugal relations. The Church has clearly taught that one can never separate procreation from unity during conjugal relations and I have demonstrated this in our previous discussions. And I have more quotes pertaining to some of your other questions but I do have to go for now but hopefully will be back soon.
Yes, I think the subtext of NFP is erroneous. It is generally used as a longterm means of avoiding conception while regularly enjoying conjugal relations. The Church institutions press this on couples preparing for marriage, as a way to limit the number of children and lengthen the gap between consecutive children.
“[P]etition the Bishops?] Surely you jest. They could give a rats patoot about the “Faithful.” Their job is to encourage the disaster and get the best seats at the table and their names in the newspapers. They might stand up to the pope but first some brave soul would have to lash a plank to their spine.
What is the difference between a manifested heretic and formal heretic?