Exploring Maryland's Catholic Roots

At a gala for Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum in Arlington last September, Tim Flanders of One Peter Five gave the main address.  He gave a very interesting summary of the history of Catholicism in Maryland.  It is in Maryland where Catholicism first took root, championed by the Calvert and the Carroll families.  The Collegium posted the address on youtube and it is now posted below.

Another Synod Is On Its Way - So Too Is Another Amoralis Lamentia

This one, scheduled for this coming October, will be called "Synod of Bishops on Youth, focusing on: youth, women, moral issues, and leadership.  I agree with One Peter Five that this one, like the infamous one of 2-3 years ago, that this one will be used as a front to forward a progressive agenda.  Read his commentary.  Some of those young people criticize the Church as being "severe" and "associated with excessive moralism".  C'mon!  Teenagers have been grousing at their parents for the same reasons for countless generations!  They are simply bucking the policies that keep their lives from being ruined because they are too driven by emotions and hormones.  As the wise parents stand their ground, so too must the Church and not think of such youthful rebellion as real guidance.  Robert Royal of Catholic Thing said that he would have found such toadying "pathetic" had he been approached by adults like that when he was a teen.

Such "severe" aspects include the Church's teachings on homosexuality, abortion, shacking up, etc.  The kids have gotten their hopes up that the Church will change her teachings on these matters.  That is impossible of course, for the Church's teachings on morals are those of Jesus Christ.  They won't change for God Himself doesn't change.  But the fact that these heretical hopes are being entertained may well be a convenient smoke screen for those progressives within the Church who do want to insinuate such changes under the guise of "being pastoral" and "accompanying", etc.

As the synod on the family was a disguise for the promulgation of Amoralis Lamentia, I dread the thing that will be published after this youth synod.  It is probably already written and simply is waiting for this October dog-and-pony show to happen.

Freemasonry's Role In Knights Of Malta Scandals

One Peter Five has published parts of a letter issued by Pope Francis to Cardinal Burke, asserting that "manifestations of a worldly spirit..must be prevented from being introduced into the order, including affiliations and associations, movements and organizations".  It would seem that Cardinal Burke, with the assistance of Fra Matthew Festing, was doing precisely that when they ousted Albrecht von Boeselager, who allowed Maltaser to distribute condoms.

But as we've seen, Festing was coerced into retiring and Cardinal Burke has been further marginalized by the appointment of Archbishop Becciu as "Special Delegate to the Knights of Malta".     Boeselager has been reinstated as Grand Chancellor.  Dare we speculate that he is free to resume his distribution of condoms vis-a-vis Maltaser?  But the article quoted by 1P5 highlights another detail, one that might otherwise have escaped notice.  The pope nullified all actions taken by Festing, going back to December 6.  One of those actions was the establishment of a commission to investigate a strange inheritance received by the Knights of Malta: 120 million (currency denomination not stated) into a Swiss bank account.  There is some speculation that it came from Boeselager himself; now that question is far from being investigated, let alone answered.  Do recall that Albrecht's brother, Georg Von Boeselager, was appointed as a director of the Vatican Bank during this time.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is NOT a coincidence!

The Lepanto Institute published a bit of history of the Knights of Malta, focusing on their centuries-old contentions with Freemasonry.  I agree that there is much more to this situation than meets the eye.

Who Stays and Who Goes

Amoralis Lamentia has given us a view into the pope's mindset regarding the Deposit of Faith that he's tasked to defend.  That defense is not happening; we see quite the opposite occurring.  But if AL isn't enough, let's remember the maxim "personnel is policy".  It certainly applies in this case as one watches the personnel shifts in various Vatican organizations.  See who stays and who goes.  Particularly look at the conduct of those retaining their posts and those obtaining new posts.

The pope appointed a new apostolic nuncio to Mexico.  He is Archbishop Franco Coppola.  Mexico has been dealing with the topic of gay #mowwidge as has the United States.  The faithful Catholics there have been conducting marches to rally support for traditional marriage.  Coppola scolded their efforts, telling them not to march but to "dialog" with the supporters of evil.  In a sane world, a real bishop would have been encouraging faithful Catholics to step up their efforts and would have rebuked those shilling for perversion.  As you read the LifeSiteNews piece, it's clear that Coppola's sympathies are with the promoters of sodomy.

Getting back to Amoralis Lamentia, the pope last month praised a dissident theologian whose heresies provided some foundation for AL.  This happened during a Jesuit conference last month, and the theologian is Bernard Haring.  Apparently it was Haring who devised the aberrant definition of "discernment" that seems to be a favorite buzz word among the progressive elements.  This "discernment", according to Haring, "allows" for contraceptive use.  He carried on so much that Pope John Paul II forbade him to teach at any Catholic school and stripped him of his "Catholic theologian" title.  So now this pope is praising a dissident for the very behaviors that caused his sainted predessor to discipline him?

Meanwhile, the purge of the faithful prelates in Vatican organizations marches on.  From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, several faithful prelates were ejected.  These include U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Austrilian Cardinal George Pell, and Canadian Cardinal Marc Oullet.  The latter still retains his headship of the Congregation of Bishops - for now.

Now let's look at the Pontifical Academy for Life.  Who got canned from that body?  All of them!  According to One Peter Five, the pope rewrote the statutes of that organization that effectively removed the entire membership.  Moreover, these new statutes state that members may be selected without regard to religious affiliation, and that the new members will not have to take the Jerome Lejeune Oath, an oath requiring members to defend the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death.  Why was that oath excised?

There's an important "side note" in that One Peter Five link.  According to inside sources, many in the Vatican were supporting Hillary Clinton's bid for the US presidency.  If that's so, they were supporting sin.  To the extent that foreigners can interfere with our elections, I don't know.  If their support was more than trivial, can it be said that they sinned mortally?  Can it be said that this sin goes all the way to the top?

I suspect there will be more personnel shake-ups to admit more poison into Church structures.

Vatican Webmaster, Restore Pius XI's Writings - NOW!

I saw this on the site of 1 Peter 5.  Take a look at the video he made.  I tried it myself and saw the same thing.

He said someone told him "never underestimate the incompetence of the Vatican IT staff".  I don't think it's innocent incompetence.  Consider that before September (or whenever it was removed) that the links to the popes' writings had existed there for years.  Only with a fair degree of deliberation can a link be changed.  Notice that the link isn't merely broken as though the Pope Pius XI page was inadvertently deleted; that would have triggered an error message.  It is rerouted back to Pope Francis' page; someone had to change that page link.  Moreover, if it was some technical issue, don't you think that the pages pertaining to other popes might be likewise impacted?  They aren't - just that of Pius XI.

Skojec has suggested reasons why Vatican progressives might find the writings of Pope Pius XI to be rather inconvenient to their goals of instilling de facto disobedience to Christ's moral teachings.  I agree but also think there are additional causes.  Recalling that Amoralis Lamentia has done much to instill "pastoral malfeasance" regarding divorce and remarriage, consider that with the other writings of Pope Pius XI encyclical Casti Connubii likewise disappeared.  Another encyclical that's gone is Quadragesimo Anno, in which Pius highlighted socialism's incompatibility with Catholicism.

Some might be rather indignant that we'd suggest Vatican officials might be capable of such underhanded actions.  Time for a memory-refresher.  Remember "Book-Thief Baldiserri"?  Read the link and you'll see how this website alteration might just be right up their alley.

Fortunately the internet is what it is, and there are other sites on which papal writings are available.  One of the sites is papalencyclicals.net.  Take a visit.  It is still a scandal that on the Church's website, the writings of a pope could be removed.

Amoris Laetitia And Ordination Of Women: Attacks Against The Faith By Pope Francis

On May 7, One Peter Five published some remarks made by Archbishop Bruno Forte, Special Secretary for the synods on the family.  It seems the archbishop was quite cocky, but frank.  He revealed some motivations behind the pope's manipulation of the synods, namely, to insinuate the idea that unrepentant adulterers should be allowed to receive Holy Communion.  Read the piece carefully.  There are still some who, wearing rose-colored glasses, stubbornly cling to the fantasy that the pope is simply a lovable but naive little bumpkin who can't help his verbal gaffes and who is so good-natured that the mean bureaucrats in the Vatican and media can manipulate him to no end.  That is merely a carefully crafted facade, and we all need to remove our rose-colored glasses immediately.  The pope is anything but naive.  He knows what he's doing and he's playing some truly naive Catholics for fools.  These willingly naive Catholics are culpable for sins against prudence.

I put "amoris laetitia" correctly at the top so that this post would more readily be sought by search engines.  As I said earlier, the name is more aptly rendered "amoralis lamentia".  Others are of similar mind.  John Smeaton of Voice of the Family has asked Pope Francis to withdraw amoralis lamentia (using the official name) and suggests that we do the same.  Cardinal Muller and others are refuting the thing for the poison that it is.

But now it seems the pope has moved onto another arena in which to deconstruct the faith.  He has announced the creation of a commission to study the "possibility" of women deacons.  If this idea is continued, it will be in direct contradiction to Ordination Sacerdotalis, written by Saint John Paul II.  In it, Pope John Paul made quite clear that ordination is not for women, going so far as to declare it solemnly.  In light of that, there is no "possibility" of women deacons - at least not in the Roman Catholic Church.  So why, oh why, is the pope setting up this "commission" to "study the possibility"?  If one is obedient to the Magisterium they see that there is no possibility to study, no question to consider.  It just dawned on me that the very first attempt to "study the possibilities" in clear contradiction to God's word was when the serpent questioned God's word during his conversation with Eve, but I digress.

Recall that after the synod report was released after the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, the language regarding Holy Communion for adulterers was left in it despite being voted out by the synod fathers.  In retrospect, we can now see that this was clear preparation for Amoralis Lamentia.  In the same way, I suspect this commission is being established as a cover to slide in some "pastoral practices" that constitute de facto "ordination of women deacons".

I'll close this post with another thought that might tie this mess together.  Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand was interviewed regarding the Fatima message.  Sister Lucy Dos Santos, one of the visionaries, spoke a bit of Our Lady's words.  She said that "the final battle between Our Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family".  She also said that "the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top".  I think we are witnessing both these events.

Holy Communion - The Divorced Who Ask Will Be Admitted

Remember Eugenio Scalfari, the Italian atheistic journalist who interviewed the pope several times but allegedly never bothered to record the proceedings of the interview?  Supposedly he simply wrote from his memory.  He reported some whoppers by the pope and immediately sent the Vatican press office into a tizzy; at least we're supposed to believe the tizzy was authentic.  I actually think it was quite an act: the pope can let a little heresy out with the help of his friend, and when the resultant flack starts to fly, they can claim it was all just some sort of mistake.  It's a neat way to insinuate heresies into people's minds while taking no responsibility for it, isn't it?  Recall these incidents from last year.  You'd think that if Scalfari really was misrepresenting the pope, that the pope would avoid him.  In this latest interview from a few days ago, the pope and his press office may have tipped their hands.

Rorate obtained a translation of La Repubblica.  It contained another "telephone interview" in which the pope said of divorced folks and Holy Communion with regards to the sin-nod outcome, "all the divorced who ask will be admitted".  One question that popped immediately into my mind is, "if it's just divorced folks and not remarried, what's the problem?"  Immediately following that another thought, a reply to my question, came; "if they're just divorced and not remarried, they wouldn't need to ask".

One Peter Five has a great analysis of this strategy of using Scalfari to insinuate heresies into unsuspecting minds.  Well, maybe he isn't using Scalfari per se, but rather working in concert with Salfari.  There's too much of a pattern now for us not to notice.  I truly hope that the "it's not the pope's fault, he's just controlled by the Vatican meanies crowd" will finally acknowledge what is as plain as the noses on their faces.

May God help us all.

Update - Rorate Caeli has published a reply to the sin-nod's back-door attempt to admit de facto adulterers to Holy Communion, written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  The length and depth of this reply causes me to believe that he did not have in mind this Scalfari interview (probably knew nothing of it at the time of his writing).  Please read it on Rorate's site.

Yet Another Reason Why Patheos Is Pathetic

One Peter Five (featured in my blog list) published a piece on why he doesn't believe women should be lectors.  For the record I, a woman, share that opinion and for many of the same reasons as enumerated in his post.  Owing to God-ordained differences in roles, I do not believe women have any business being in the sanctuary of a Church.

Deacon Kandra who pens the Patheos-hosted blog "Deacon's Bench" took issue with the piece, holding it up for ridicule.  What were his reasons?  Well, he didn't quite get around to articulating his case.  Since he doesn't have a comments section, he apparently doesn't want discussion and debate abut his writings.  My suspicion is that he didn't like the nod to tradition evinced in One Peter Five but knew he had no sound basis.  So he quotes the piece, says it's stupid and thinks his readers will fall in lockstep.  Such is the intellectual vacuity of many of the Patheos pieces.