Two days ago an article was published by Sandro Magister indicating that the pope was exploring the possibility of opening Holy Communion to Protestants. Of course that possibility does not exist unless one is talking of turning a blind eye to sacrilegious Holy Communion. However since that was explicitly done in Amoris Laetitia (or more accurately, Amoralis Lamentia) in regards to unrepentant adulterers being admitted to Holy Communion, there's no reason to doubt that he just might be mulling that additional sacrilege in his mind.
So what would be next? Would we see Jewish rabbis with yarmulkes and Buddhist monks in robes in line to receive Holy Communion? How about Muslim imams? They did, after all, utter prayers to their false idols in the Vatican gardens. Perhaps we'll see wiccans and "church of satan" devotees receiving (hopefully not to blaspheme the Host later). Why not? It seems like anything goes these days. Granted many of these would not receive as their own creeds would forbid it, but why would we even welcome the possibility?
Couple this now with an article that was published on the site that I call Crud. As far as this particular article goes, I've no reason to question its factual accuracy, given other things that have spewed forth from the Vatican lately. We "ultra-conservatives" and "pelagians" find many causes for concern, as any reader of this (and many other) blogs have noticed during the past few years. He knows of our concerns for the Faith and the multitude of souls that will languish in hell if they don't receive the fullness of teaching and truth that Jesus literally died to have extended to them. Yet he is dismissive of them. That brings me to the points in the next paragraph.
Three months ago I put forth a suggestion that we lay Catholics might need to resist these insults to Our Lord. I think we need to revisit this matter. About fourteen years ago some Catholic men organized "ushers of the Eucharist" to physically prevent sacrilegious Holy Communion by gay activists. I haven't heard from this group since, but I believe this concept bears some exploration and even implementation. Too many progressives are quite comfortable in putting forth blasphemies and heresies, believing that we are too uncomfortable to confront them. Only we can end that by stepping out of our comfort zones. Will there be a price to pay for doing so? Yes, but that won't be as costly as the price we'll pay if we let the progressives go unchallenged and without resistance.
Now.. Will we have the courage to do so, especially as we know it will be a long and arduous struggle?
Showing posts with label Sandro Magister. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandro Magister. Show all posts
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Was Pope Benedict Deposed To Make Way For Amoris Laetitia And Other Insults To The Faith?
This post will highlight two posts concerning this current papacy. At first glance they may appear to be unrelated to each other. I suspect they are very much related, for reasons that I'll state further into this post.
The first is from Bear Witness Central entitled "Was There A Coup In The Vatican To Depose Pope Benedict XVI?" For the record, I believe there was, for Benedict's resignation appears to be most uncharacteristic of him. Several circumstances are mentioned therein: the election of Pope Francis after the reigns of two faithful popes, the admission of Cardinal Danneels of a "mafia" within the Vatican that opposed Pope Benedict XVI, and Danneels' rise in prominence after Francis ascended the papal throne despite his own dissidence from the Church's moral teachings. I won't go into every detail of that post here, but suggest its careful study since many facts of Pope Francis' words and conduct, and their relationships to one another, are illustrated.
The second is by Sandro Magister entitled "Amoris Laetitia Has A Ghost Writer. His Name Is Victor Manuel Fernandez." If Fernandez's name sounds familiar, I regret that it is for cause. I've written a bit about him in the past. It was Edward Pentin who broke the news that Fernandez would be the principal author of the post-synodal exhortation; at the time of Pentin's revelation, Amoris Latetia was not yet named. Fernandez is also the author of some crap entitled "Heal Me With Your Mouth; The Art Of Kissing". That sure makes Fernandez sound like some porn author. No wonder I was inspired to rename AL to be "amoralis lamentia".
What Magister points out that really raises eyebrows are the comparisons of theologically faulty pieces of AL with previous writings of Fernandez's of several years ago. The similarities suggest that AL may well have been drafted before the two synods. That seems to be the case for the synod reports: written before the synod fathers could have any meaningful input. I agree with my colleagues at Rorate Caeli when they postulate that the two synods were merely fronts to legitimize the screed of Fernandez.
So what is the connection between these two posts that I cite? Fernandez wrote his articles, the foundations of "amoralis lamentia" well before Cardinal Bergoglio became Pope Francis. Its promulgation is one key step in the deconstruction of Catholic life as we know it. Pope Benedict stood in their way and needed to be removed. I believe he was. After that, we immediately saw the little insults to traditions, such as dispensing with traditional papal garb, the beach ball on the altar of St. Mary Major, clown nose selfies to the more harmful gaffes ("who am I to judge"). I could go on and on, but the undermining of the Faith has worsened in both number and severity of incidents.
Pope Paul VI is quoted as saying, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church". He was right, and now the Vatican is full of carbon monoxide. Pray, stay alert, and speak out.
The first is from Bear Witness Central entitled "Was There A Coup In The Vatican To Depose Pope Benedict XVI?" For the record, I believe there was, for Benedict's resignation appears to be most uncharacteristic of him. Several circumstances are mentioned therein: the election of Pope Francis after the reigns of two faithful popes, the admission of Cardinal Danneels of a "mafia" within the Vatican that opposed Pope Benedict XVI, and Danneels' rise in prominence after Francis ascended the papal throne despite his own dissidence from the Church's moral teachings. I won't go into every detail of that post here, but suggest its careful study since many facts of Pope Francis' words and conduct, and their relationships to one another, are illustrated.
The second is by Sandro Magister entitled "Amoris Laetitia Has A Ghost Writer. His Name Is Victor Manuel Fernandez." If Fernandez's name sounds familiar, I regret that it is for cause. I've written a bit about him in the past. It was Edward Pentin who broke the news that Fernandez would be the principal author of the post-synodal exhortation; at the time of Pentin's revelation, Amoris Latetia was not yet named. Fernandez is also the author of some crap entitled "Heal Me With Your Mouth; The Art Of Kissing". That sure makes Fernandez sound like some porn author. No wonder I was inspired to rename AL to be "amoralis lamentia".
What Magister points out that really raises eyebrows are the comparisons of theologically faulty pieces of AL with previous writings of Fernandez's of several years ago. The similarities suggest that AL may well have been drafted before the two synods. That seems to be the case for the synod reports: written before the synod fathers could have any meaningful input. I agree with my colleagues at Rorate Caeli when they postulate that the two synods were merely fronts to legitimize the screed of Fernandez.
So what is the connection between these two posts that I cite? Fernandez wrote his articles, the foundations of "amoralis lamentia" well before Cardinal Bergoglio became Pope Francis. Its promulgation is one key step in the deconstruction of Catholic life as we know it. Pope Benedict stood in their way and needed to be removed. I believe he was. After that, we immediately saw the little insults to traditions, such as dispensing with traditional papal garb, the beach ball on the altar of St. Mary Major, clown nose selfies to the more harmful gaffes ("who am I to judge"). I could go on and on, but the undermining of the Faith has worsened in both number and severity of incidents.
Pope Paul VI is quoted as saying, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church". He was right, and now the Vatican is full of carbon monoxide. Pray, stay alert, and speak out.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
If Personnel Is Policy, We Have Glaring Indications Of Dangerous Vatican Policy
Sandro Magister has done the Catholic world immense service by exposing the progressive machinations within the Vatican, particularly with its conduct during last October's sin-nod. Eponymous Flower has more detail on Magister's service to truth. Most recently he published a leaked version of the Laudato Sii encyclical, which is scheduled to be released tomorrow. Tancred also details how Magister's Vatican press credentials were immediately revoked. Dare we opine that Father Lombardi's outrage is rather biased?
Regretably Lombardi's alleged zeal for ethics seems to be a thin pretense for sacking Magister on the flimsiest of excuses. Such bias is evidence by the people who are allowed to remain at the Vatican. Who can forget the book theft engineered by Cardinal Baldiserri at the sin-nod? How about Father Rosica's spiteful conduct in filing suit against Vox Cantoris? So here we have a Prince of the Church engaged in mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment and a Vatican official engaged in unethical intimidation (fortunately for him his higher-ups yanked his leash). To the best of my knowledge, they still retain their high positions, despite their arguably serious sins. So yes, we do have a purging of the faithful from the Vatican.
Concurrent with this purging of the faithful is the placement of those whose public opinions are openly hostile to the Teachings of Jesus Christ. As mentioned before here, Hans Joachim (John) Schnellnhuber, population control afficiando, will be one of the four who will assist tomorrow in the roll-out of Laudato Sii. Schnellnhuber is on record as saying that the world's population should be reduced to under one billion people - a reduction of about six billion. So how, dare we ask, does Schnellnhuber propose to accomplish this massive reduction? We wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.
Perhaps the Vatican should have awaited the answer to that crucial question before they named him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Yes, you read that correctly. A rabid population-control advocate, instead of receiving the boot on ass, is actually admitted to a Vatican position. If we know his wishes to reduce the earth's population, surely the Vatican does too - and I mean the pope!
As the saying goes, personnel is policy. I think we now have more than an inkling as to what Vatican policy is. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, with all due honor and respect to the office of the papacy, we cannot kid ourselves and pretend that the current occupant of Peter's chair is blithely unaware of these events. He is enabling them if not outright orchestrating them. Please pray for him and for Holy Mother Church.
Regretably Lombardi's alleged zeal for ethics seems to be a thin pretense for sacking Magister on the flimsiest of excuses. Such bias is evidence by the people who are allowed to remain at the Vatican. Who can forget the book theft engineered by Cardinal Baldiserri at the sin-nod? How about Father Rosica's spiteful conduct in filing suit against Vox Cantoris? So here we have a Prince of the Church engaged in mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment and a Vatican official engaged in unethical intimidation (fortunately for him his higher-ups yanked his leash). To the best of my knowledge, they still retain their high positions, despite their arguably serious sins. So yes, we do have a purging of the faithful from the Vatican.
Concurrent with this purging of the faithful is the placement of those whose public opinions are openly hostile to the Teachings of Jesus Christ. As mentioned before here, Hans Joachim (John) Schnellnhuber, population control afficiando, will be one of the four who will assist tomorrow in the roll-out of Laudato Sii. Schnellnhuber is on record as saying that the world's population should be reduced to under one billion people - a reduction of about six billion. So how, dare we ask, does Schnellnhuber propose to accomplish this massive reduction? We wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.
Perhaps the Vatican should have awaited the answer to that crucial question before they named him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Yes, you read that correctly. A rabid population-control advocate, instead of receiving the boot on ass, is actually admitted to a Vatican position. If we know his wishes to reduce the earth's population, surely the Vatican does too - and I mean the pope!
As the saying goes, personnel is policy. I think we now have more than an inkling as to what Vatican policy is. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, with all due honor and respect to the office of the papacy, we cannot kid ourselves and pretend that the current occupant of Peter's chair is blithely unaware of these events. He is enabling them if not outright orchestrating them. Please pray for him and for Holy Mother Church.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Looks Like All Hell Will Break Loose At The Next Synod
About 2-3 weeks ago, I put up a post in which Cardinal Burke publicly asked the Holy Father not to allow long-settled matters such as the sinfulness of homosexuality and remarriage of divorced people to be fodder of pointless debates. Debates about these matters are pointless for Our Lord has made known His mind about these quite unmistakably throughout the years. Cardinal Burke also suggested that we all petition the Holy Father along these lines. Sadly wise words have fallen on deaf ears.
Sandro Magister of www.chiesa.espressonline.net advised that the preliminary questionnaire for the October 2015 synod was released; for now it's only in Italian. The questions within it give clear indication that those matters will indeed be on the table for the October synod.
In an interview given to La Nacion yesterday, the Holy Father expressed some unfortunate sentiments regarding Holy Communion for those living in adultery - sentiments that bode ill for the October synod. I quote one below for commentary. "In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptised, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give Communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact. Thus, let us open the doors a bit more.”
"What doors can we allow them to open?" Answer - the door to the confessional, with a proper desire to quit the sinful relationship as befits authentic repentance. Divorcees who have remarried without a declaration of nullity of their first marriages are by definition living in a state of adultery. That is mortal sin, a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment. For their own good they are prohibited from Holy Communion and from all prominent places of service to the Church.
What I stated in the paragraph preceding this is nothing more than Church teaching for these past hundreds of years. Once upon a time every child who attended Catholic school was well-versed in these matters. So why, oh why, are the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church allowed to be debated, doubted and questioned by the very prelates who are tasked by Our Lord with their protection and promulgation?
As I said, I believe all hell will break loose at the synod. I don't mean "hell" in terms of strenuous argument but in terms of spiritually deadly heresies being insinuated into the proceedings by those from the highest offices of the Vatican. If that's the case, we'd better pray that more like Cardinals Burke and Pell will raise their voices and, if necessary, pound their fists on tables in defense of the truth.
Sandro Magister of www.chiesa.espressonline.net advised that the preliminary questionnaire for the October 2015 synod was released; for now it's only in Italian. The questions within it give clear indication that those matters will indeed be on the table for the October synod.
In an interview given to La Nacion yesterday, the Holy Father expressed some unfortunate sentiments regarding Holy Communion for those living in adultery - sentiments that bode ill for the October synod. I quote one below for commentary. "In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptised, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give Communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact. Thus, let us open the doors a bit more.”
"What doors can we allow them to open?" Answer - the door to the confessional, with a proper desire to quit the sinful relationship as befits authentic repentance. Divorcees who have remarried without a declaration of nullity of their first marriages are by definition living in a state of adultery. That is mortal sin, a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment. For their own good they are prohibited from Holy Communion and from all prominent places of service to the Church.
What I stated in the paragraph preceding this is nothing more than Church teaching for these past hundreds of years. Once upon a time every child who attended Catholic school was well-versed in these matters. So why, oh why, are the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church allowed to be debated, doubted and questioned by the very prelates who are tasked by Our Lord with their protection and promulgation?
As I said, I believe all hell will break loose at the synod. I don't mean "hell" in terms of strenuous argument but in terms of spiritually deadly heresies being insinuated into the proceedings by those from the highest offices of the Vatican. If that's the case, we'd better pray that more like Cardinals Burke and Pell will raise their voices and, if necessary, pound their fists on tables in defense of the truth.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Three Offensive Paragraphs To Remain In The Final Report
In my post that showed in the wee hours of this morning, I mentioned that Rorate Caeli had reason to believe that the three paragraphs of the interim report that were voted out of the final report were still going to remain. I just learned that Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register has reported the same thing.
Father Federico Lombardi stated (according to the Register) that the three paragraphs "are not completely rejected. They cannot be considered an expression of synodal consensus”, he said, but rather show a “work in progress” and areas that “still have a ways to go.”
"Not completely rejected"? If not, what was the purpose of the vote? Was that voting exercise just another part of the "dog and pony show" of the SinNod, so it was ok to disregard the obvious rejection of the three paragraphs?
"Work in progress" and "still have a ways to go"? What does that mean? Does it mean that the paragraphs remain so that Catholics can be deceived into thinking that settled moral doctrine is fair game for debate and attempts to change it? If not, what can be the reason for keeping the rejected paragraphs in the report?
Those three paragraphs are by no means examples of "surprises of God" but merely the machinations of those bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church and the damnation of countless souls who will be hapless enough to be deceived by the wolves who are masquerading as shepherds.
I would recommend to you that you read this article by Sandro Magister on "The True Story Of This Synod, Directors, Performers, Assistants". You can see the machinations have been going on for some time. Both Machiavelli and Alinsky would be proud of them. They are NOT going to give up their schemes to bastardize the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Anyone who thinks this final report represents a victory for faithful Catholics really need to step out of their bubbles and take off the rose-colored glasses for we are in for a long struggle here.
In my previous post I gave a nod to Saul Alinsky, for all of this is right out of his playbook. However, this post's nod will go to Nancy Pelosi for she coined the term "we have to pass it to find out what's in it." It seems rather appropriate for the dissidents are determined to get that theological and spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of Catholics by whatever means they can, be those means ever so unethical.
Father Federico Lombardi stated (according to the Register) that the three paragraphs "are not completely rejected. They cannot be considered an expression of synodal consensus”, he said, but rather show a “work in progress” and areas that “still have a ways to go.”
"Not completely rejected"? If not, what was the purpose of the vote? Was that voting exercise just another part of the "dog and pony show" of the SinNod, so it was ok to disregard the obvious rejection of the three paragraphs?
"Work in progress" and "still have a ways to go"? What does that mean? Does it mean that the paragraphs remain so that Catholics can be deceived into thinking that settled moral doctrine is fair game for debate and attempts to change it? If not, what can be the reason for keeping the rejected paragraphs in the report?
Those three paragraphs are by no means examples of "surprises of God" but merely the machinations of those bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church and the damnation of countless souls who will be hapless enough to be deceived by the wolves who are masquerading as shepherds.
I would recommend to you that you read this article by Sandro Magister on "The True Story Of This Synod, Directors, Performers, Assistants". You can see the machinations have been going on for some time. Both Machiavelli and Alinsky would be proud of them. They are NOT going to give up their schemes to bastardize the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Anyone who thinks this final report represents a victory for faithful Catholics really need to step out of their bubbles and take off the rose-colored glasses for we are in for a long struggle here.
In my previous post I gave a nod to Saul Alinsky, for all of this is right out of his playbook. However, this post's nod will go to Nancy Pelosi for she coined the term "we have to pass it to find out what's in it." It seems rather appropriate for the dissidents are determined to get that theological and spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of Catholics by whatever means they can, be those means ever so unethical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
