Of New Things And Surprises And Diabolical Subtleties

A little note before I begin this post.  I will be expounding on these rather bizarre statements from the Pope, understanding of course that they are not spoken ex cathedra.  However, because there are some good-hearted people who think that every word he utters is a prophetic declaration or that it's just wonderful when he dons a clown nose for a silly selfie, there needs to be some input that is not derived from the "three monkeys" approach.  I'm pleased to note that many of my fellow bloggers seem similarly persuaded.  In fact, I shall be linking to them (as I often do).

Within the past several weeks Pope Francis has said some things that are perilously close to being logically, philosophically and theologically impossible.  These anomalies of thinking seem to be shared by prelates such as Cardinal Kasper, and their stench emanated from the SinNod.

On October 13, the Catholic Herald (UK) reported on the Pope's homily.  In that, he reportedly stated that "if laws do not lead people to Jesus they are obsolete".  It's obvious that he is confusing God's law with Pharisaical customs, for there is nothing inherently evil about eating with sinners (we all are sinners).  Why that distinction was not drawn is not so much careless, but now in light of the SinNod, somewhat suspect.  God's laws will never be obsolete.  They are His word, and as God Himself is eternal, so are His laws as they reflect His eternal will.

We certainly did see an attempt during the SinNod to question the eternity and relevance of God's laws, especially with the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sins of sacrilegious Holy Communion and sodomy.  They are contained in those three paragraphs that should have been removed but in reality they still remain part of the report despite the votes of the prelates in attendance.

Regarding the fallacy of the law "not leading people to Jesus", recall that it's God's law that is indispensable to our discernment of Jesus in our lives and Church as opposed to some counterfeit.  Let's look at that statement again, rephrasing it ever so slightly.  "If laws do not lead people to Jesus, it's because that pseudo-lovely image of Jesus is a counterfeit.  God's authentic laws will never lead to anyone but Jesus."  With all due respect, I think this statement to be tad more accurate than the former.

In that article, we also heard about this "god of surprises", and he has been throwing that phrase at us ever since.  You'll notice that I did not capitalize that "g".  "God of surprises" is not a phrase that I've ever seen in the Scriptures nor in any other Church documents (I suppose that omission renders them "obsolete"?).  What is with this fetish about "being surprised"?  In the various contexts in which this phrase is bandied about (including the closing address of the SinNod), I suspect this "god of surprises" is not much more than a pagan idol designed to lure the naive into abandoning the One True Faith.

Let me share a particularly blasphemous manifestation of this "god of surprises", with thanks to Vox Cantoris.  Father Thomas Rosica, official of the Vatican Press Office and player in the SinNod, tried his best to make those in irregular marriages (that is, adultery) seem legitimate by opining that the Holy Family was "irregular"!  To suggest any hint of sin about the Holy Family is both intellectually insulting and blasphemous.  Is it, as the blogger suggests, part of the campaign for us to "mature", as said Pope Francis in his closing address?  Most likely so.  In saner times, Father Rosica would have been disciplined if not defrocked.  Now he'll probably be rewarded.

During the Mass during which Pope Paul VI was beatified, Pope Francis said repeatedly that "God is not afraid of new things".  There is truth to that statement - for several good reasons.  First, we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 that "there is nothing new under the sun".  God is eternal.  His Word and Law is eternal.  Furthermore, we know that all public revelation has occurred and ended with the death of the last Apostle (John).  If there is any new "dogma" or tweaking of settled Church teaching, the impetus of such is utter foolishness at best and diabolical at worst.  Of course God can overcome all such duplicity; we weak humans need to exercise prudence and discernment.  Those two qualities must not be confused with fear and suggestions for such confusion must be rejected.

Let's face it.  This talk of "god of surprises" and "new things" is progressive manipulation of words to manipulate the Catholics into questioning the Magisterium and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, this time in regards to divorced/remarried Catholics and those embracing the sin of sodomy.  Even now they are preparing in earnest for next year's ordinary synod, where they hope that they will be more successful in undermining the Faith.

By Its Rotten Fruit You Shall Know It - God Of Surprises That Is

Events of the past three days, spawned in great part by the lead of Pope Francis as he invokes this "god of surprises", makes painfully obvious that this "god of surprises" that the pope invokes is nothing more than a filthy false idol.  As noted in a post two days ago, we saw how Lutherans received Holy Communion.  It is sacrilege for non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion; that priest knew full well what he was doing.  May God bring him to speedy repentance.  Even if the pope ordered him to offer Holy Communion to non-Catholics, he was bound by the sacrament that he received not to commit mortal sin.  On the heels of this sacrilege we have a new outrage.

The pope ordered Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to issue a decree ordering that women be admitted to the washing of the feet during Holy Thursday liturgies.  Edward Pentin gives full details in the National Catholic Register, along with the full text of Cardinal Sarah's decree.  Note that in his decree, the Cardinal ascribes full responsibility for this foolishness to the pope; who can blame him?  Indeed, in his letter to Cardinal Sarah, the pope said he had "the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus' gesture in the Cenacle."  Yep!  For over two thousand years, the Church had no idea what it was doing when it restricted the rite to men.  In fact, Jesus Christ Himself had no idea what He was doing when He washed only the apostles' feet on Holy Thursday night.  It has always been the Church's teaching that this rite was reflective of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.  Is the "god of surprises" once again trying to get women admitted to that Sacrament?

The demon(s) that masquerade(s) as this "god of surprises" seem(s) to have in mind the complete deconstruction of the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.  Let's be clear - when we say "Sacred Tradition" we are talking about the revealed will of Jesus Christ as He has communicated it to His Church.  God's teaching and will do not change for God Himself cannot change.

I will note that there is one tiny piece of silver lining to this dark cloud that the pope just released.  In issuing the order stating that "from now on the pastors of the church may choose" women to participate, he is acknowledging that prior to the order, that women were not allowed to participate.  In other words, he is acknowledging his own disobedience to Canon law, as well as thousands of other progressive clergymen.  What, if anything, will be done to repent of so many sins of disobedience to the Church on those occasions?  Do we hear crickets?

I believe the order does specify that those chosen must be Catholics, although heaven only knows what he means by "people of God".  Will he add insult to injury by continuing to select non-Catholics for the foot-washing?  I suppose we should breathe a sigh of relief that he did not order priests to select women, although progressive bishops can now use this order to coerce their faithful priests into doing so.

When I first heard of this order, this poem came to mind: "Disobey!  Have your way!  Then one day, they'll say ok!"  The poem would be a perfect fit except that this papal order is not a reluctant concession, but one given in all enthusiasm.  It is right up his ally, as is apparent from his previous patterns of action and speech.

Let us pray that these abominations end soon, for they are wreaking havoc with the eternal destinies of many thousands, if not millions of souls.

Real Idolatry Is Worship Of God Of Surprises

In his homily yesterday, the pope lobbed another insult at faithful Catholics who adhere to Sacred Tradition.  As we all (should) know, Sacred Tradition is not just "the way things were done"; rather, it is God's revealed teaching to the Church.  It is His Word.  Sacred Tradition does not change because God, its Author, is immutable.  Here is the English translation of the homily from the Vatican's website.

He cites the example of Saul, first king of Israel.  Israel was at war.  Samuel the prophet communicated to Saul the will of God that everything pertaining to their enemy was to be destroyed - including their animals.  Saul had another idea: to keep some animals to offer burnt offerings to God.  Of course he was doing so in disobedience to God.

Somehow the pope tries to liken us to the disobedient Saul, when in fact it is those who take God's Sacred Traditions lightly who are acting along the lines of Saul.  One could say, in looking at Saul's actions, that he was merely trying to accommodate a "god of surprises" instead of acting in humble obedience to His revealed will.  Again, if it seems that God's will is akin to "what has always been done" and is not changing, it's because God Himself does not change.

Even more incredibly is that the pope calls us "idolators".  Why?  Because we're not open to this "god of surprises".  Note that he says the Holy Spirit continuously "surprises us".  Well, one can only be surprised by someone or something of which he/she has no knowledge.  But the Church teaches us through Sacred Tradition.  What she taught Catholics 500 years ago is no different than what she teaches today, for God Himself is no different today than He was 500 years ago.  Is this so complicated?

If this papal theme of "don't adhere to tradition but be surprised" theme sounds familiar, it should.  It really is a rehashed attempt at brainwashing.  See here and here and here.  Regrettably, what we have here is yet another attempt to cause us to distrust the little solid foundation that we do have in our faith, so that we will fall for progressive novelties disguised as "surprises from God".

If there's any idol here, it's this "god of surprises".

SinNod's Grande Finale - Part 1 Of 2

I will comment in two parts, as two documents were released today: 1) Pope Francis' speech at the conclusion and 2) the final relatio synodi

Here is the text of the Pope's remarks as they appear on the Vatican website.  Please read over; you might want to have the page open in another browser window as I go through this.

First he thanks a lot of folks; that's nice.  There are some notable "players" at the SinNod who received no mention.  We see no gratitude expressed for Cardinal Kasper; in the light of the African quip and his subsequent lie about the interview, I can understand this omission.  Likewise we saw no thanks for Cardinals Burke, Pell, Muller and Napier.  These Princes of the Church aired some dirty laundry in that SinNod (as did Michael Voris) and helped provide some impetus to regularizing SinNod proceedings.

Then we hear about some "temptations".  Here is the first, and I'll quote the Holy Father verbatim.  I'll post it twice: one with no edits and the second with my comments interspersed.

Original quote
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

With my comments in red
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, What is the "written word" if not Sacred Scripture and Tradition, along with Church laws derived from Scripture and Tradition with the Church's teaching authority? (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, If any purported "surprise of God" contradicts the aforementioned "written word" we may rest assured that any such "surprise" is not of God. by the God of surprises, "God of surprises"!  Where, oh where do we find that title in either Scripture or the history of the Church? (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.  As one Facebook commenter quipped, the real issue is the "Church hierarchy surprises".  They are not to be confused with any movement of God.  Thus paragraphs 50-53 are "surprises" that were demonic; we knew that for they defied the "written word".  There is no dichotomy whatsoever between God's work and His Written Word.  This is not the first time this false dichotomy has been proposed.  Regrettably it probably won't be the last.

Moving along we see " I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia."  That's nice!  Please share that joy!  Let us know who said what for all the speeches and interventions - as was common practice for synods until two weeks ago!

I'll end with this whopper.  "And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life."  Excuse me!  Look at the interim report - particularly paragraphs 50-53!  Fundamental truths of marriage were most certainly contradicted in that report.  Now this is a stretch, but the only way that statement could be ever so slightly correct is if gay lifestyles were indeed not discussed on the floor and these paragraphs were surreptitiously added to the report, as Cardinal Napier suggested.  I will address these paragraphs in the "part 2" post.

Some well-meaning people are waxing ecstatic about this phrase, claiming that the Pope is formally upholding Catholic teaching on marriage, per the challenges put forth by Cardinals Burke and Pell.  No, this is not a formal statement upholding these teachings.  All it claims is that the teachings were not flouted during the SinNod - and even that might be (ahem!) incorrect.

God Of Surprises Inspires Sacrilegious Holy Communion

Yesterday I wrote how the "god of surprises" about which the pope blathers is really a false idol.  Now it seems this filthy idol is deluding Vatican clergy - possibly the pope - into allowing non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion.  This happened today after Lutherans were granted a papal audience.  Courtesy of One Peter Five, we have a report from Sandro Magister about the abomination that occurred earlier.  Yesterday another blogging colleague, Tenth Crusade, put up this piece detailing how the pope hemmed and hawed when asked by a Lutheran if she could receive Holy Communion,  Instead of the pope telling her the truth, he in fact gave veiled permission for her to commit a sacrilege.  At the time Tenth Crusade put up that post, this latest travesty had not yet occurred.

I'll now link to a post that appears in AKA Catholic (formerly Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II) by Randy Engel.  It was she who wrote the book "Rite Of Sodomy" that helped expose the homosexual cabal within the ranks of Catholic clergy.  The post is entitled "Pope Francis: The Divinization Of Change, And The New World Order".  I'd certainly call this "god of surprises" an attempt to make a false deity out of change.  Now consider the word "change".  Ladies and gentlemen, God does not change.  He is immutable.  Whatever He was, He now is and ever will be.  He is eternal.  Likewise His Word and His laws are eternal, as they reflect His eternal, immutable will.  If anyone prattles about a "god" that changes, rest assured that "god" is a false idol.

I also have no doubt that a "new world order" is a main goal of the progressives within the Vatican.  I'd venture a guess that was a motive in allowing Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament to suffer sacrilege.  Among other things, it's a fairly blatant attempt to devalue Holy Mother Church in the minds of Catholics so that she is no longer seen as the One True Church but just as one religion among many (including non-Christian religions).  This is why so many progressives favor the empowerment of the United Nations to the point of compromising and even eliminating the sovereignty of individual nations.  The "global warming / climate change" schtick is another gimmick to coerce individuals to follow one-world mandates from some UN demagogue(s).

I'll close this with a quote from Vatican I.  I pray that Pope Francis will remember that he is the Vicar of Christ and will never again allow Holy Communion to be received in a sacrilegious manner.

"The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that, by his revelation, they might reveal new teaching, BUT so that, by his assistance, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or in other words, the Deposit of the Faith." - Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus

Shining The Light Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Today's Vortex addresses why Catholic bloggers will continue to shine the light on clerical misbehaviors - despite the whining and pouting of those who insist upon wearing rose-colored glasses in the face of clerical mischief.  It is their evil, more than that of laity, that has so much potential to damage the church simply because of the authority they do wield.  Indeed, untold numbers of souls have been led astray by nonsense from clerics.  Witness the gays who now have reason to believe that their mortal sins are affirmed by Cardinal Dolan as a result of the St Patrick's day parade fiasco.  And yes, witness the millions who now believe adulterers will be allowed to commit the sin of sacrilege with Holy Communion thanks to the grotesque relatio released by Pope Francis.  Yes, I will continue to shine the light - despite the stubborn resistance of some to seeing the truth.  One such individual is Jeff Mirus - more on that below the video.



Mirus penned a piece recently, to which I link now.  I'll unpack a few salient points - but not all for I don't have time for that.

Let's look at the second paragraph.  Since you'll have it open in a separate browser window, I'll interject my comments in red throughout this copy.  "Every few weeks (or perhaps every few days), Pope Francis says something that annoys or even appalls those who like their Catholicism neat and tidy.  His "neat and tidy" quip is really quite condescending.  That's a cheap shot, Mr. Mirus - for shame!  At any rate, we prefer the faith being portrayed clearly and unambiguously, for the sake of poor souls who really do need the truth with no gimmicks for the sake of their eternal salvation.  Pope Francis seems to enjoy not only shaking things up (which he has admitted) but speaking colloquially, and therefore with less theological and pastoral precision than might otherwise be the case. My readers know that I don’t think this is nearly as dangerous as many do,  for those who are not oh-so-sophisticated to wade through sloppy presentations, the lack of theological precision can well damn them nor do I think Francis is attempting to push the Church in an unacceptable direction I cannot divine whether or not he's attempting to push the Church in a bad direction; regardless of his motives that is in fact what he's doing."

Let's look at this one.  "I don’t think Francis thinks in the categories of left and right, liberal and conservative, that so many Western Catholics use as a kind of ecclesiastical shorthand to categorize conflicts over doctrine, liturgy and moral principles. Rather, I think Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted, And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a BIG problem on its own, when so many don't know the basics of faith and morals.  Even bishops, as evinced by the nonsense from the Sin-Nod last October display ignorance of their faith.  In their case I hope it's ignorance, lest they be culpable of serious sins but is really fed up with clericalism and formalism (call it systemic rigidity or riskless ministry) which prevents the Church (in her members) from being profoundly evangelical and constantly engaged in sacrificial service to those who are materially, morally and spiritually poor. This does lead to misunderstandings, but those misunderstandings are  half due to our own inadequate categories of reflection  So what does Mirus call it when so many, of diverse perspectives and levels of Catholic knowledge, glean the same messages from the Pope?  When anyone attempts to communicate, he/she accepts the responsibility of communicating their message clearly.  It just isn't acceptable to blame the recipients of the message for repeated failures to communicate clearly."

Here Mirus shows evidence of swallowing the "god of surprises" kool-aid.  "In the challenge of love, God shows up with surprises…. So let yourselves be surprised by God: Don’t be afraid of surprises, afraid that they will shake you up.  Don't you think that depends on the nature of the particular surprise in question?  They make us insecure  Really?  Why should they?  but they change the direction we are going in. True love makes you “burn life”, even at the risk of coming up empty-handed."  Why this fetish regarding "surprises"?  Are we aware that God is immutable?  That His word doesn't change?  When we come across anomalies and are surprised by the same, maybe - just maybe!- that sense of "surprise" is really a warning from our good sense to stay away from the source of alarm.

As I said earlier, I don't have time to unpack this entire mess from Mirus (at least not in this post).  I will look at one last thing.  "We have a standing joke in my household. When I express an opinion about Pope Francis, my wife asks: 'How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?'"  I echo Mrs. Mirus' question, not only to Mr. Mirus but to all who refuse to take off their happy-clappy rose-colored glasses.

God Of Surprises A False Idol

Let's take a look again at this notion of this so-called "god of surprises".  Again I'll link to the Pope's closing address at the SinNod.  I'm not certain that I dealt with it thoroughly in the last post and want to do so for we are seeing way too many manifestations of clergy bowing before this idol.

He chides those whom he considers embroiled in "hostile inflexibility".   Supposedly we close ourselves within "the written word" and don't allow ourselves to be "surprised by God".  Now think of it.  What would cause the serious, faithful Catholic to be surprised, even alarmed, if they were to encounter something that seemed off the mark?  Most likely it would be some deviance from God's word.  There's no doubt that our understanding of God's written word is not perfect; but in many cases neither is that understanding completely lacking.  The Catholics who have made good faith attempts to study their faith and to live it out (via prayer, Sacraments, good works) are, to varying degrees, able to perceive spiritual danger.  Often that spiritual danger is signaled by a divergence from God's written word as found in Scripture and/or Church tradition.  Thus the "surprise" that some may experience is really a red flag, a warning that spiritual peril is afoot; rather than embracing that source of "surprise" perhaps it should be fled, as Peter urges us to do with Satan.

The Pope has suggested that "God always surprises".  "Always"???   I can see surprises happening from time to time, but if one is always surprised, perhaps that tendency betrays an abysmal ignorance of the faith OR they are dabbling with spiritual forces that will lead to their eternal perdition.

Dare I suggest that any attempt to dissuade Catholics from reliance on God's written word in favor of some "surprise" is itself seduction by the devil?

From The Maturation Department: Does God Disobey Himself?

During the Easter Season, the weekday epistles are taken from the Acts of the Apostles while the Gospel reading is from the Gospel of John.  Two days ago we had the reading in which Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin and ordered to stop preaching.  The two apostles replied they'd obey God rather than man.  It is on that reading that the Pope based his homily for that Mass.

His theme was rather odd.  It was a push for "dialogue".  Ladies and gentlemen, if there's one thing God did not command the apostles to do, it was to engage in "dialog".  No.  They were commissioned by God to proclaim the Gospel, to baptize all and to teach them everything He commanded.  No pointless "back and forth" was ever required.  God never dialogued with anyone.  Oh, there were conversations, but not dialogue as with equals.  He taught, preached, commanded - but did not dialogue for He has no equal.

He then went on to say of the pharisees, "they had studied the history of the people, they had studied the prophecies, they had studied the law, they knew all about the theology of the people of Israel, the revelation of God, they knew everything, they were teachers".   No, they did not know everything.  In fact, Jesus Himself rebuked them for their lack of knowledge when He declared to them, "you err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God".  (Matthew 22:29)  I believe that once again we see the attempt to portray those who honor Sacred Tradition in honor as not much more than "stick in the mud" types who can be dismissed as those who don't "dialogue" with every silly fad that blows their way.

He uttered this rather odd statement: "The one who doesn't know to dialogue does not obey God."  The Bible and Sacred Tradition do a rather decent job in spelling out sins that offend God.  I'd wager that if anyone searched the entire Bible (any version!), the writings of Church doctors and other time-honored writings of the Church for any hint of "dialogue" as being a requirement of true Christianity, that not one mention would be found.

We see another curious phrase: "newness of God".  No such thing!  God is NOT "new" as He existed even before time began.  He is eternal.  News Flash!  "New" and "eternal" or NOT synonyms!  Is this a throw-back to the "god of surprises" excrement?  An attempt to induce mistrust in the Traditions and Teachings of Holy Mother Church?  Another "maturation" effort to brainwash us for the next sin-nod?  Louie Verrecchio has some excellent commentary; I refer you now to his post.

To sum up, the world is in desperate need of real shepherds who will preach God's word, teach His Commandments, administer the Sacraments of the Church.  We need no useless back-and-forth jabber-jawing as though those steeped in sin can somehow better the Church.  Should this dalliance with "dialogue" continue, I suspect that may be a cause in real wrath to come.

Amoris Laetitia - Oozing With Heretical Gobblygoop

Here is a link to Amoris Laetitia as it appears on the Vatican website in English.  Please note that this English translation is on the Vatican's site.  There can be no claims to "poor translation"; the pope owns the mess.  So now let our Friday penance begin.

Paragraph 3 is a thinly disguised attempt to justify situation ethics.  Notice the line "each country or region can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs".  Wrong.  It is the eternal Teaching of Our Lord, manifested through Sacred Tradition, that is to take precedence over "local tradition".  Solutions must be based on Our Lord's words and Teaching - that and that alone, with no tweeking for the sake of "tradition".  When he evangelized Ireland, should St. Patrick have been sensitive to the "tradition" of druidic human sacrifice?  No less should our bishops today give any lenience to the mortal sin of adultery, which is what the divorced and "civilly married Catholics commit to the eternal detriment of their souls.

So that's only page 4.  We've got 260 more pages of this pig-slop through which we must slog.  But we will soldier on!  In paragraph 4 he said that the synod process was both "impressive and illuminating".  I might agree with him there, but I saw it to be "illuminating" for the heretical proclivities and strong-arming of faithful Catholics that it revealed.

In paragraph 7 he said that "everyone should feel challenged by chapter 8".  I think I will pop over there, but notice how he words his statement.  What does he mean by "challenged"?  Is this more of the "god of surprises" flim-flam?  Let's move to chapter 8.

At the end of paragraph 294 and going into 295, we hear talk of this "law of gradualness".  To wit:

"That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel.  Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called law of gradualness in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.

I read the passage of the woman at the well a number of times.  That conversation between Jesus and the woman occurred in a matter of minutes.  I don't consider that to be especially "gradual".  He got right down to the nitty-gritty and did not permit her to remain in her sin without direct confrontation of that sin.  What the pope is proposing in terms of addressing the needs of a cohabiting couple is - not to address their real need of immediate repentance, for as long as they remain in sinful situations they place themselves and each other in danger of hell.  If any of us realized that our loved ones were in a burning building, would we consider the "law of gradualness" or would we rush in to rescue them?

In paragraph 297 there occurs a curious and perhaps heretical statement: "No one can be condemned forever for that is not the logic of the Gospel".  Excuse me, but what does the pope think hell is?  Is he denying the existence of hell?  Among other things, it is the abode of those who are condemned forever by their own doing.  Then he talks about an "unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous mercy".  There is no such thing.  While God's mercy is unmerited, by no means is it "unconditional and gratuitous".  The necessary condition for receipt of God's mercy is repentance.  Repentance entails the forsaking of sinful conduct and near occasions of sin.

Paragraph 298 is not much more than an attempt to justify those divorced who are living in adultery.  With all the litany of sad circumstances, the fact still remains that as long as the couple are living as husband and wife when they aren't they place themselves and one another in mortal sin.  I wonder how they can claim to love one another and still jeopardize the eternal salvation of each other?  Or doesn't eternal reality factor into their considerations?

Paragraphs 299 and 300 are also full of blather seeking to justify adultery.  Paragraph 301 sees the pope being a bit more blatant about it.  Read this: "Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."  Oh yes it can and it must.  What was once true is always true.  Those living in adultery are living in mortal sin.  Sexual sins are always grave matter and obviously consent is present.  Even with the lackluster catechesis in the church today there is often an intrinsic realization that adultery is sinful.

He tries to cite St. Thomas Aquinas as a source for this strange teaching by saying "Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well"  There's a vast difference between "not exercising any one of the virtues well" versus living in a state of mortal sin.

Paragraph 305 is an outright vilification of clergy who act in fidelity to the Tradition of the Church and who rightly hold that individual conscience must yield to that same Tradition.  He states that such pastors are "throwing stones at people's lives" and that they are of "closed heart of one hiding behind Church teaching".  How can it be wrong for one to "hide" behind God's word?  Would that all engaged in such "hiding", rather than in hiding behind progressive and humanistic justifications for slapping God in the face by regarding His commands with less than obedience.  As you read this paragraph, please take note of footnote 351 for therein you'll find both insult against the sacrament of Confession and a thinly-disguised justification for adulterers receiving Holy Communion.

Voice of the Family has an excellent treatment on this eighth chapter.  Rorate Caeli and AKA Catholic should also be studied.  I hope to put some more time into the reading of this thing but the consumption of 260+ pages of flim-flam is an onerous task.

The God Of Surprises Ain't So Surprising

Last Saturday I opined how this upcoming "youth synod" is appearing to be quite similar in intent to the "family synods" of a few years back that resulted in the dung heap known as Amoralis Lamentia.  Today's post from One Peter Five confirms my suspicions.  It seems that a number of young people who participated in the English-speaking contingent of the "Pre-Synodal Meeting of Young People" are keenly interested in the promotion of traditional practices such as adoration, Gregorian chant and of course the Latin Mass in Extraordinary Form. 

The meeting took place from March 19-24 in Rome, with approximately 300 in attendance.  Lickety-split, on March 24, the Final Document of the Pre-Synodal Meeting of Young People was released.  My!  That document was produced with remarkable speed and alacrity!  Why, a suspicious sort of person might insinuate that it was typed and ready to go even before the attendees arrived on March 19th.  Perish the thought!  Why, that has never, ever happened in the Church's history, right?  Right??!? (/sarc)

Some of the faithful Catholics have voiced displeasure at the short shrift that their concerns received in that document.  They understand that their numbers are significant and would have expected to have their wishes treated in a commensurate fashion.  But let's face it.  We are dealing with a Vatican - and a pontiff - who seem to be doing all they can to obliterate Tradition - both in worship and in teaching.  If they manipulated the 2014 meeting to such an extent that Cardinal Pell had to openly rebuke them, why should we be surprised at any manipulation of the meeting that ended a few days ago?  I don't know for certain that such subterfuge occurred, but there is precedent for such a hypothesis.

Their "god of surprises" is being revealed as a "god of the ssame-old-same-old".  By the way - check out what my blogging colleaague, Catholic American Thinker, has to say on the matter.

How NOT To Honor St Francis Of Assisi

Today is his feast day.  St Francis is the founder of the orders that bear his name and by extension, the other orders that are the offshoots of those.  I link now to an article detailing the saint's life; of course there are more on the internet as well as countless books besides.  I'd urge careful, thoughtful study of these: first, to learn what his role in the Church was and second, to diffuse some of the pseudo-pious legends and sayings surrounding him.  The latter might be born of enthusiasm and admiration for him, but all too often the enthusiasm sheds boundaries of reason and actually wind up trivializing the saint's life.  I will now delve into some common gaffes:

• "He's the greatest imitator of Christ who ever lived".  I recently saw this on the internet, but it is by no means the first.  Here's the problem: a rather serious one.  The word "greatest" is an adjective of comparison.  If that statement were true, we must also admit its converse: "All other imitators of Christ are inferior to St Francis".  Whoever conceives these statements therefore sits in judgment over the sanctity of every Christian who ever lived.  That's extremely presumptuous at best.  Only God Himself is in a position to make any sort of declaration like this.  The following is similar.
• "St Francis is the most saintly of the Italians, and the most Italian of all the saints."  I suppose the first part of this canard is less innocuous than the one in the first bullet, for at least its originator sits in judgment of only those of Italian descent and not the whole of humanity.  The second part of this thing invokes some rather silly and shallow stereotypes of Italians.  I suppose it has to do with popular notions of Italians being spontaneous and effusive in their gestures and vocal inflections, often given to displays of emotions.  Surely these stereotypes have nothing to do with the more low-key, scholarly saints like Thomas Aquinas..oh, wait!  Last time I checked, St Thomas Aquinas was an Italian!
• "St Francis of the bird bath"  I don't see these so much now, but at one time they abounded.  This probably has to do with the incident of him preaching to birds, and they flocked to hear him.  This is one notion that has as an effect (hopefully unintentional) of trivializing him into a mere nature-lover.  The next and last one has no veneer of piety whatsoever and no faithful Catholic would be caught dead dabbling in this.
• "St. Francis the envirowhacko".  I wish I was making this up.  The environmentalists among us have arrogated to themselves St. Francis' name to legitimize their environmental idolatry, with all its anti-life underpinnings.  Take a gander of the job that the "Catholic Climate Covenant" has done with Franciscan imagery, being so arrogant as to call their pledge to idolatry the "St Francis pledge".

If St. Francis had to do any purgatorial pit-stop after his death, I'd be willing to bet that knowledge of the aforementioned lapses of intelligence in his name would have been part and parcel of his mortification.  Let us ask his intercession, and that of all Franciscan saints, that our Church be restored to fidelity to Christ's immutable teachings and leave behind the fantasies of the "god of surprises".

Deconstruction Of Church Tradition Under Pope Francis

After the grotesque display of satanic idolatry at St Peter's Basilica on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, we continue to see increasingly blatant attempts to deconstruct Church teaching.  Many of these attempts are from high Church officials, including Pope Francis.

Thanks to Toronto Catholic Witness, I was directed to the homily that Pope Francis gave on December 8th to inaugurate the "jubilee of mercy".  This is on the Vatican's website.  Here is the troubling passage: "Before all else, the Council was an encounter. A genuine encounter between the Church and the men and women of our time. An encounter marked by the power of the Spirit, who impelled the Church to emerge from the shoals which for years had kept her self-enclosed so as to set out once again..." (emphasis mine)

I agree with TCW that in that phrase, Pope Francis spit in the eye all his predecessors, some of them saints, blesseds and doctors of the Church, precisely because they acted as shepherds who guarded their flocks.  While this pope might prefer that we take the "smell of the sheep", his predecessors (by and large) sought to preserve the Church in the odor of sanctity.

In a recent interview, Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said that "some form of birth control" might help with "overpopulation" and resultant "food shortage".  He also stated it could help with "climate change".  He then reminded us all of the shameful way in which Pope Francis treated the woman who was expecting her eighth child.  It would be an interesting thing if that eighth child were to confront the pope and tell him a thing or two, but I digress!

He must have realized his Freudian slip for he tried to backpedal, saying only "natural forms of birth control" were acceptable.  I don't buy it; else, why would he have used the general, nebulous "some form" descriptor for birth control?  More importantly, periodic abstinence from marital relations cannot be equated with what is commonly referred to as "birth control".  Voice of the Family is correct in opining that Turkson's remarks do lend credibility to the attempts to divorce marital relations from the procreation of children.  They certainly do make plain the linkage between "climate change" junk science with population control.

According to the Guardian, a Vatican document (name unknown) exhorts Catholics not to attempt to convert Jews to Christianity.  This document is from the Vatican commission for relationships with Jews.  Boys and girls, can you say "ecumenicide"?  You probably noticed during Triduum services that the traditional prayer for Jews to come to Christianity has been scuttled in recent years, so this manifestation of ecumenicide predates the current pontiff.  Now what was that again that we read in the Bible, at the end of several Gospels, where Jesus commands (not "suggest", not "request", but "command") the Apostles to baptize all "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?  Or did the "god of surprises" change his mind?

As I read of this, I think of what St Paul wrote in several of his letters, how he wished that all his brother Jews would be converted.  I also think of St. Vincent Ferrar, who once marched into a synagogue, started preaching and converted thousands of Jews on the spot.  Paul!  Vincent!  Naughty-naughty!  Stop that now!  Leave the Jews (and others) to wallow in darkness!  Don't you know that we must be ecumenical?  Seriously though, how can one talk with a straight face about a "year of mercy" and yet not seek to bring others to the font of mercy, that is, Jesus Christ, who acts through His Church?

My blogging colleague Julie at Connecticut Catholic Corner put up a piece today entitled "The New Age Of Pope Francis' Church".  Read it for I concur with her.  I too pray for a holy pope who will save souls.  At this time, it appears that this pope will not be Pope Francis, but only God knows.  Let us pray.

Battle Axe Of The God Of Surprises - Cor Orans

I'm going to post three videos regarding the pope's continued attacks on Sacred Tradition in order to pave the way for a "New World Order" idolatrous religion.  The idol's façade and moniker is "the god of surprises".  The pope yammers about that a lot, doesn't he?

In the first video, Taylor Marshall offers commentary on the pope's latest nonsense called "Let Us Dream".  The pope, in this book, is telling us to disregard God's immutable truths and "dialogue" with the diabolical.  As Marshall recites the heresy in that book about "dreams" and "dialogue", I can almost hear John Lennon singing his ode to atheism called "Imagine"; as I recall, Lennon also claimed to be a "dreamer".  

Here is Marhall's video, but there are two others to follow, regarding a traditional cloistered convent of nuns who are being ordered to commit vocational suicide by embracing Cor Orans.  Please note that these nuns (and others like them) are NOT being given any benefit of "dialogue".  These convents and monastaries are full of young monks and nuns who are living lives of prayer, penance, adherence to the Sacraments - in short, being instruments of God's grace for this sick world.  The progressives know that, and for that reason, they want these houses of Catholic religion demolished.  We must pray our Rosaries.

Do Not Believe Every Spirit But Test Against God's Word

The Vatican Radio station published the homily that the pope gave at his Mass yesterday.  The full text is here.  Remember - this is on the Vatican's website. You can't blame the "big bad media" for taking the pope's words out of context. He spoke about docility to Amoris Laetitia the Holy Spirit.  Well, we can glean just what he meant.  Here is a key line.

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit under the guise of loyalty to the law."

Now what is this law to which the Pope so disdainfully refers?  Let's be blunt; it's the Sacred Tradition of the Church found in her dogmas, Sacred Scripture, canon law, moral precepts, etc.  Now from where did these originate?  From God Himself and that would also include the Holy Spirit.  So in light of these facts, let's rephrase that line.

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit because of loyalty to the Holy Spirit."

True docility to the Holy Spirit is not this "will o' the wisp" lark that the pope seems to embrace.  Remember his "god of surprises" schtick?  Where in all of Scripture or Tradition does anyone find precedent for that phrase?  We don't.  Some time ago there was yap and yammer from the pope about "change".  Not possible.  The Sacred Deposit of Faith and Tradition will not change.  Why? Because God, the source of the Faith is Himself immutable.  So if "loyalty to the law" renders you resistant to the spirit, keep resisting for that "spirit" is not the Holy Spirit.  Sacred Scripture in fact tells us to "test the spirits" for there are many out there that are malevolent.  One key way of doing that is to measure these "spirits" against God's already-revealed Word.

Do we have here yet another attempt at grooming the Catholic populace for seismic changes in "pastoral practices" that will be tantamount to de facto changes in doctrine.  Note I said "de facto" and not "de jure".  The pope can never change solemn Church teaching per se; but he and others can do immense harm by instituting "pastoral practices" that have the same spiritual effect.

Please pray.  Please be aware.

I'll now put up a clip created by my blogging colleage at AKA Catholic.

Papal Reactions To The Dubia

Tomorrow there will be a consistory at the Vatican to formally create the new Cardinals.  Traditionally before such gatherings, the pope has held pre-consistory meetings with already existing cardinals before the ceremony.  This time he canceled it.  Understandably a number of eyebrows are raised, particularly because Pope Francis has often lauded "dialogue" and "collegiality".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to postulate a reason for this cancellation.  That reason is the Dubia written by the four cardinals, requesting formal clarification regarding doctrinally questionable segments of Amoris Laetitia.  A response from the pope has been requested.  Can anyone doubt that it would seem grossly disingenuous of the pope if he didn't at least mention it at any meeting of cardinals.

The Dubia is formatted in such a way that it must be answered with "yes" or "no", with no "in-between" responses feasible.  In an interview, the pope had this to say: "Some, as with certain responses to Amoris Laetitia, persist in seeing only white or black, when rather one ought to discern in the flow of life.."  "Discern in the flow of life"?  What the hell does that mean???  Might it be a clever way of saying "go with the flow"?  If so, what flow?  Who/what determines the flow?  Are we even (in the pope's mind) even allowed to ask that question, because, well - the god of surprises!!!  Faithful Catholics have news for him.  Has he considered that at the end of time there will either be heaven or hell?  Doesn't that truth seem to be rather "black and white"?

Elsewhere in the interview he says critics of Amoralis Lamentia "don't understand" that the Church "exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God's merciful design".  As I learned my Baltimore Catechism, Jesus Christ founded the Church to help us get to heaven.  That is done by administration of the Sacraments, as well as promulgation of Christ's teachings.  His teachings on faith and morals are quite direct, "black and white".  One either obeys or disobeys them.

I will post now a video of yesterday's episode of World Over, where Raymond Arroyo interviews Robert Royal and Edward Pentin.  The whole thing is worth watching, but pay close attention between the 27:10 and 29:09 marks, where Pentin relates what his sources told him, that the dubia has the pope "boiling with rage".  While we'd hope for a calm response to the letter, at least we know that the dubia isn't being ignored - at least privately.

Let us pray that the pope reaffirms the Teachings of Jesus.  Barring that, let us pray that these cardinals stay the course and that others join them.  Vox Cantoris has words about that.  Now the video.

Veritatis Gaudium Inspired By The Heretic Teilhard De Chardin

Teilhard de Chardin is one of the architects of the spiritual apostasy among the Catholic clergy.  After the expose on the heretic Chardin, listen closely to the expose on the "New Theology" and compare it with Veritatis Gaudium, Section 2, second paragraph.  "As I have had occasion to note, one of the main contributions of the Second Vatican Council was precisely seeking a way to overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral care, between faith and life. I dare say that the Council has revolutionized to some extent the status of theology – the believer’s way of doing and thinking".

The priest in this video is doing a study on the Book of Revelations.  Notice at the 56:00 markk he speaks of the pit being opened and smoke coming out - smoke that obscures true doctrine.  The pit is blocked by a door to which God holds the key - the key given to the pope.  So in light of this, how may we view the "god of surprises", "pastoral versus doctrinal", etc?  Do we see the latest blasphemy of Cardinal Marx in a new light?

Prostelyzation - Bad For Catholic Truth But Fine For Pachamama

A Christmas concert at the Vatican a few weeks ago featured a tutorial in how to participate in pachamama idol worship.  Yes, this idol-worship session was sponsored by the Congregation for Catholic Education.  That congregation's name is clearly a misnomer.  Both Gloria TV and Church Militant have accounts of the sacrilege.  They have translations but even with my limited knowledge of Latin-based languages, I can detect "mother earth" (madre terra).  What is particularly galling is how the prelates in the audience follow along like good little sheep dogs and cross their arms over their breasts to "feel the heart of mother earth".  Is that a liturgical gesture?  Well yes, but not Catholic.  Look to the right to see who uses that gesture in their ceremonies.   Did any of them, just one, keep their hands at their sides?

Doesn't this strike you as flagrant prostelyzation?  Gasp!  I thought that was forbidden in this new enlightened age of the "god of surprises".  But I guess that prohibition only applies to the actual fulfillment of Christ's commission to proclaim the Gospel. 

But of course this wasn't prostelyzation you see?  This is just a part of what Pope Francis said when he said that church must "adapt" lest it become "irrelevant".   He states that "the faith in Europe and much of the west...is often derided, denied, marginalized and ridiculed".  That's true, but his antics are a big reason why that's the case.  He is constantly undermining her teachings instead of upholding them while he yaps about "climate change" and other nonsense.  What else would he expect the world to do?

He also points the finger (again!) at faithful Catholics who uphold Jesus' teachings.  I suppose one of them would be Dr Josef Seifert who has stated that if what the pope teaches is in contradiction to perennial Church teaching, then we have a solemn duty not to obey it.  Take note well.  Obviously this prohibition would mean that we don't obey cues to assume idolatrous worship practices or allow for disregard of the Church's moral teachings.  It also means that we are NOT permitted to shill for the abolition of the death penalty nor for de facto open borders.

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.

Marriage On The Fly - In More Ways Than One

It seems like an ecclesiastical disaster erupts every time Pope Francis embarks on an international flight.  Last week's trip was no exception.  Much of secular and milquetoast-Catholic media is all aflutter about the so-called "beautiful" marriage that the pope officiated between two of the airline employees whilst in flight.  Never mind that the two of them were only "civilly married", that is, were shacking up for eight years beforehand.  You see, it was so..."spontaneous", and...and.."so pastoral" of the pope to marry them on the spot, right?  Well, maybe not so much.

It turns out that things may not have been that "spontaneous" after all - that in reality, at least the couple had their eye on this possibility.  They said as much in an interview they gave to a local newspaper - a month before the nuptial flight.  Many news outlets, including CNN, portrayed the situation as the pope offering to marry them and the couple gladly accepting - making it look like the entire thing occurred at the pope's initiative.  So was it the pope's initiative, or the couple's?  Might it be a combination?  Might the Vatican have gotten wind of the couple's interview and have determined that this "impromptu wedding" might be a booster for the pope's image?  In other words, was the whole thing scripted from the get-go?  So much for the "god of surprises"!

There are also questions regarding the status of this "wedding".  Canon lawyer Ed Peters raises some important questions.   Recall, of course, that canon law is the law of the Church.  Peters also states that because of the pope's disregard for Church norms, that priests will have even more difficulty in enforcing them in their own parishes - norms such as marriage preparation, insistence on being in a state of grace (recalling that this couple had been shacking up for eight years), etc.

Now here's another unpleasant but relevant consideration.  We now know that Amoralis Lamentia is a deliberated assault on three sacraments: Confession, Communion, and Matrimony.  Last week's "flighty marriage" was yet another episode that undermines the Sacrament of Matrimony and all it entails.

Beware The Post-Synodal Exhortation

Two days ago I mentioned that the Post-Synodal Exhortation on Marriage would most likely be released.  That likelihood has now increased.  Edward Pentin has published an announcement by Cardinal Walter Kasper that the thing could indeed be released on Saturday March 19.  Kasper said that this document will be a "first step in a reform..after 1700 years", and that "we must not repeat past formulas and barricade ourselves behind the wall of exclusivism and clericalism".

My!  How the Church must have wallowed in despair and darkness, lo these past 1700 years, just pining for the "god of surprises"!

Kasper did get specific about allowing civilly remarried divorced Catholics - in other words, those living in adultery - to receive Holy Communion.  He gave lip-service to the "penitential period" crock, conveniently overlooking the critical detail that authentic penitence necessitates the cessation of sin and the occasions of such sin.  I've written quite a bit about Kasper in the past: enough to say that this announcement of his is quite typical for him.

Voice of the Family has put together quite a thorough analysis of this exhortation.  They warn of many dangers embedded in this exhortation.  In addition to adulterers being allowed to receive Holy Communion sacrilegiously, the Church's teachings on contraception are undermined, parental rights are undermined, etc.  I suggest that all read it and beware of what will soon be unleashed upon the Catholics in the pew.  Be prepared to shield yourselves from temptation and to assist your fellow Catholics through the confusion that this exhortation will foist on them.